Ship of Fools: Why did Jesus have to choose to die?

Thread: Why did Jesus have to choose to die? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026605

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

As He asked Himself: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The Ultimate Sanction ?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That's Who. Not why.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Surely he chose to obedient, and he chose to go on being obedient even when it became clear that the price of obedience was death. I don't think that's the same thing as choosing to die.

(Unless you take the view that he chose to become incarnate, in which case he presumably knew that would end in death at some point.)

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Why was the cross necessary?

Answer: because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Which raises the question as to why that should be so.

Well, I would say that it is because God cannot "just forgive" by an act of authority. God's moral character is consistent, and, contrary to what some theologians might suggest, God cannot act in an arbitrary manner. Forgiveness cannot undermine justice. God is just, and hates injustice. Therefore He cannot simply forgive evil by subverting the proper process of justice. His character forbids Him from suspending justice. Therefore someone had to take the punishment, in order that we could be delivered from the power of evil.

The whole system of animal sacrifices, which obviously pointed to the cross, was to remind Israel that sin has consequences. Sin, by its very nature, is destructive, and the mess and 'obscenity' of animal sacrifices brings that reality home.

Those who try to play down the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, and seem somewhat embarrassed by the blood and gore of it, might wish for a God who can just forgive sin as an act of authority. I find that kind of God utterly abhorrent, because he cannot be trusted. By contrast, a God who was prepared to go to such lengths to uphold the consistency of His character, is a God worthy of our trust. The necessity of the cross is the basis of our faith in God, and the security that we can enjoy in our relationship with Him.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The cross wasn't necessary, it could have been stones, or an axe, or anything else. Implications: different symbology, like maybe axes or a pile of stones in place of crosses? Interesting to consider Constantine's vision of the chi-rho in this context.

People killed Jesus. God didn't. Jesus chose to be faithful, not to being killed, but to continue faithfully on his path of truth, even if it caused his death. God didn't tell him to die, nor did God arrange it. People have always been fully capable of doing such things all on their own. God doesn't get involved like that in the world. If Jesus had chosen not to die, there would have been another path, another story, another gospel, another testament... and a great big "NO!" to PSA*.

*penal substitutionary atonement theory, or prostate specific antigen. I am pleased to report a 'no' to both.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

He chose to die when, in his Godness, he chose to become incarnate. Men (and women) die -- it's part of the deal. When on earth, Jesus had no choice about dying -- or else he wasn't really a human and the incarnation is just theological folly.

Now how and when he died, and what his choices might have been about that, that's worth talking about.

John

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. ...God cannot "just forgive" by an act of authority. God's moral character is consistent, and, contrary to what some theologians might suggest, God cannot act in an arbitrary manner. Forgiveness cannot undermine justice. .... someone had to take the punishment, in order that we could be delivered from the power of evil. ....

Those who try to play down the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, and seem somewhat embarrassed by the blood and gore of it, might wish for a God who can just forgive sin as an act of authority. I find that kind of God utterly abhorrent, because he cannot be trusted.

Well, you may find a God who can only be appeased by blood sacrifice trustworthy (how very Bronze Age of you) but I find the very notion ridiculous. And the idea that innocent blood can wash away the sin of the guilty is not justice in any normal sense of the word.

Jesus himself taught us to ask God "to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us" and, when the prodigal son returns, the fatted calf is killed to provide a feast, not a sacrifice. As for "being delivered from the power of evil" that seems a bit Manichean to me.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Could God have done it another way? If we are to confess that God is almighty then certainly he could have, yet he chose to do it this way. The next question, I suppose, is why? That's a lot tougher to answer. Certainly it can't be understood in isolation from the Old Testament sacrifices, though there's no doubt that Christ's sacrifice is substabtially different. The difference, of course, is that from death came life and thus death was defeated. It's a sign, a sign that death is not the end and indeed, we see this sign throughout nature as well, though that requires a somewhat sacramental view of creation which is why, I believe, many today have trouble understanding it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

All of the above ESPECIALLY Ad Orientem.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Because he had a broken heart.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib
Well, you may find a God who can only be appeased by blood sacrifice trustworthy (how very Bronze Age of you) but I find the very notion ridiculous. And the idea that innocent blood can wash away the sin of the guilty is not justice in any normal sense of the word.

Jesus himself taught us to ask God "to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us" and, when the prodigal son returns, the fatted calf is killed to provide a feast, not a sacrifice. As for "being delivered from the power of evil" that seems a bit Manichean to me.

And I find it ridiculous that some people try to respond to other people's ideas with straw man arguments. Nowhere did I refer to the concept of 'appeasement'.

I was talking about justice, and the fact that God, being just, must uphold justice. Evil has consequences, which therefore need to be dealt with. A God who, by virtue of being the ultimate authority, can just decide to forgive evil, by pretending that that evil does not require a response consistent with justice, is a God who acts arbitrarily. In other words, this concept of God is one which subverts law. Is such a God trustworthy? Do you think a person is trustworthy who can just make up and abolish the moral law as he goes along? If you can trust such a fickle being, then I'm happy for you. But I'm afraid I cannot.

As for innocent blood washing away the sin of the guilty: in a legal sense it can. But that is not to say that there are not other aspects of the atonement which relate to sanctification. Certainly we can be delivered from the power of evil. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously doesn't believe in the reality of salvation.

"How very Bronze Age of you" - I couldn't care less whether any of my views reflect the beliefs of any particular age of history. I am more concerned with what is actually true. Truth is not dependent on novelty. I think that is rather obvious, don't you think?

As for your interpretation of the so called Parable of the Prodigal Son, well, that is a clear case of misapplying an analogy. And I can't really see your point about our need to forgive others. Do you think I am disputing that fact?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

We are a flawed creature. Humans have evolved into warlike animals, full of hate. We lie, cheat, steal, desire power for our own ends and have many, many more faults.

But the one redeeming feature we have is the ability to love.

In spite of being nasty, evil, spiteful creatures, and in spite of living on a planet full of death from disease, other animals that prey on us, earthquakes, storms, volcanos and the like, in spite of all these we still can find love within ourselves.

Some have a greater capacity for love than others. Some have never been called upon to use the love they have, but nevertheless it is there.

And that is what saves us. That is why God looks upon us with His own love. With love we can connect to God; it is His language and we speak it – imperfectly and with a very restricted vocabulary, but we can be understood by Him.

Before Christ when we died, we fell into death’s grip. We became nothing. We were, to God, a wasted resource, thrown into the ground or burnt on a pyre. Our souls were trapped in death.

That is why Christ died for us. In order to break that grip, to defeat death, Christ had to look beyond our despicable natures and was still willing to die Himself in order to live again, defeating death, freeing its grip on us and allowing us to enter heaven. Christ threw open wide the gates of heaven and untied the ropes binding us to death. All because we can love and can enter into that favoured relationship with a God who is love.

It’s a bit like when my daughter throws a strop and gets angry and shouts at me, and yet I still love her enough to drive 13 miles in the evening to pick her up from school so she can go to her after-school-and-thus-missing-the-school-bus play rehearsal. She has flaws and yet it is love that makes me look beyond those flaws and to help her to do the things she wants to do.

Christ had to die and be resurrected to destroy death. Christ didn’t have to allow himself to die but he did so because he wanted to in spite of us being awful to him and to each other, because he knew that the small amount of love inside us would be enough to let us into heaven and to become at one with God. So he forgave all of us and allowed himself to be crucified for us.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Jesus could just have stared at Pilate and Caiphas, the way Peter stared at Ananias and Saphira, and they would have dropped dead.

Perhaps, after the crucifixion, after the disciples had got over the shock, they would have insisted on justice. And they might even have gone for it - behind Jesus, of course.

Instead, he left them - the means to a much nobler end, which nobody understands and very few Christians share.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I was talking about justice, and the fact that God, being just, must uphold justice. Evil has consequences, which therefore need to be dealt with. A God who, by virtue of being the ultimate authority, can just decide to forgive evil, by pretending that that evil does not require a response consistent with justice, is a God who acts arbitrarily. In other words, this concept of God is one which subverts law. Is such a God trustworthy? Do you think a person is trustworthy who can just make up and abolish the moral law as he goes along? If you can trust such a fickle being, then I'm happy for you. But I'm afraid I cannot.

Perhaps evil requires consequences, but why does evil require punishment? And if if it did require punishment, why does it require capital punishment? If the answer is God said so in the Old Testament, you have to acknowledge that plenty of Christians interpret the Old Testament in ways in which God never said that Sin was a crime that required capital punishment.

I am not denying that Christ died for our sins, although you surely may think I am. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another, etc. God became human and allowed the Incanate deity to die on the cross in order to heal the wounds of Sin and bring eternal life to humanity. Indeed, Sin is death itself - and God's love and grace is life itself. Obviously, God's love and grace can overpower sin/death, and God perhaps chooses the cross as the means of doing so because it epitomizes the giving of self for others.

God made humans in His image but humankind sinned. Sin, being unloving, was death. God became human and died on the cross for us so that we could not die but have eternal life. The whole paschal mystery can be explained (although I doubt we can ever fully understand it this side of Eternity) without using the concept of execution as punishment for a crime.

One more thing - God is indeed just, but God, being God, also gets to define what justice is. It could very well be that God's justice never meant requiring a death sentence as punishment for sin. Being made in God's image, I think we have an innate sense of what God's justice is. You seem to feel in your gut that God's justice is as you describe (and that God's revelation should be interpreted in the way you describe), but my gut tells me something quite different. Which of these gut feelings is our God-given conscience pointing us in the direction of truth? That's a good question.

Christ, being God incarnate as a human, was mortal but still God, so God (I am not getting into the issue of who - God the Father or God the Son, or the Triune God as one decision-maker) had to decide when and how to die. It's not as simple as saying that we killed Christ - although we certainly nailed Him to the cross (and continue to do so today). I don't think it's important to argue whether such an allowance by God for Christ to die occurred at the incarnation, at the Passion, or outside of time.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

EE, I believe that Jesus died for our sins in the sense that he died in the way he did because humans were being their human, sinful selves and that having incarnated death was part of the package. I believe that the Godhead united humans with his immortal Self thus preserving us. But I'll never understand the reasoning that says "justice" would demand punishment of someone innocent of the crime. I've read tons of explanations of this idea but it never computes.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Deano, fabulous post.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
God, being just, must uphold justice. Evil has consequences, which therefore need to be dealt with. A God who, by virtue of being the ultimate authority, can just decide to forgive evil, by pretending that that evil does not require a response consistent with justice, is a God who acts arbitrarily.

I think that God is just, and upholds justice. I think that Evil has consequences, and those consequences need to be dealt with.

BUT, I also think that God can, and does decide to forgive evil, no strings attached, whenever he wants (i.e. always). And I don't think that means that he pretends that evil doesn't require a response consistent with justice.

ISTM that you're making out that things are contradictory, when they're not. Forgiveness does not mean no consequences.

The way that atonement is often presented is as if the problem is God. He's the one with the issues that need to be resolved. He can't forgive until XYZ. He needs a sacrifice before he can forgive. He can't stand to be in the presence of sin, and so on. I think that's bullshit. I don't think the problem has ever been God. It's people. For reconciliation it takes the two sides to deal with their issues and want to reunite. On God's side, there are no issues. There never were. He's always been waiting, wanting to reconcile with screwed up humanity. The onus is, and has always been on humanity to deal with our issues and want to reconcile with him. And the amazing thing is that he even gives us the opportunity and means to do that, through Christ.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

QLib. Absolutely, He obeyed. His own pre-incarnate imperative. To die at our hand. Felt as coming from the Father when incarnate.

EE. I don't understand your post-hoc thinking. Which IS stuck solely in the Bronze Age. That doesn't work for the postmodern mind. I'm glad it works for you.

no prophet. Jesus kept His God made appointment with certain death. According to His understanding.

John Holding. Aye, that.

QLIb. That concept of justice is normal for most of human history and most of humanity. Still. Jesus' ministry broke the power of evil. Supernatural, sentient evil in His understanding. And that of ... most of humanity.

Ad Orientem. I don't think He could have done it any other way. Like creation. I like the sign. Please expand on the sacramental.

Pyx-e. Soooo, because we broke His heart metaphorically He chose to literally die of a broken heart as a sign to all broken hearts?

EE. I don't understand your post-hoc thinking ...

deano. I like it. You add death to evil in what Jesus' death destroyed.

pimple. Thank you.

stonespring. You finish the triumvirate of evil, death and sin inverted. Turned inside out, upside down, overcome.

Lyda*Rose. Me neither, but that's the minority experience of postmodernism for you!

goperryrevs. Splendidly postmodern.

Me. Progressive revelation continues. The Mystery works in the postmodern. Jesus' courage is all the more awesome as He wasn't.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Could God have done it another way? If we are to confess that God is almighty then certainly he could have, yet he chose to do it this way.

I now think, at this stage in my life, that God did not chose it, rather at most co-chose it with the people. Nothing was dictated by God. God could have decided all alone, but didn't and wouldn't. At the least, God let it happen, and then worked with what was there. The specifics: left to the humans to work out.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Pyx-e. Soooo, because we broke His heart metaphorically He chose to literally die of a broken heart as a sign to all broken hearts?

A sign, no. To redeem all broken hearts.

None of choose to have broken hearts, yet all our hearts are broken. See He makes all things new.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thank you. Yes. A sign of the redemption of all broken hearts.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The way that atonement is often presented is as if the problem is God. He's the one with the issues that need to be resolved. He can't forgive until XYZ. He needs a sacrifice before he can forgive. He can't stand to be in the presence of sin, and so on. I think that's bullshit. I don't think the problem has ever been God. It's people. For reconciliation it takes the two sides to deal with their issues and want to reunite. On God's side, there are no issues. There never were. He's always been waiting, wanting to reconcile with screwed up humanity. The onus is, and has always been on humanity to deal with our issues and want to reconcile with him. And the amazing thing is that he even gives us the opportunity and means to do that, through Christ.

I want all this to be true because, like you, I have real problems with the standard evangelical depiction of the atonement as solving a problem on God's side. But what about all the biblical stuff about, for example, blood being required for forgiveness? I can't remember the exact references or wording (brain not quite woken up yet!) but I'll look a few up if you like, unless someone else can help me out...

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

deano, it's not often I agree with your posts, but I think you are spot-on here.

Jesus chose to die, not to redeem us from the guilt of sin, but to rescue us from death, which is the natural consequence (rather than the judicial punishment) of sin*. (Despite what EE writes, I see no scriptural evidence for the assertion that God is being capricious in his forgiveness, He's an equal opportunity forgiver, and always has been, right from Eden).

Where does justice come in to this process. Well the Resurrection is the first and necessary step in the re-making of creation, where the evil done by sin can and will be un-done, or redeemed. As a friend of mine is wont to say, "it's not about right and wrong, it's about life and death.

*This is pure Paul; the apostle sees no substantive difference between sin and death. The one is the other, both are estrangement from the One who is the only, continuous and intentional sustainer of life.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The way that atonement is often presented is as if the problem is God. He's the one with the issues that need to be resolved. He can't forgive until XYZ. He needs a sacrifice before he can forgive. He can't stand to be in the presence of sin, and so on. I think that's bullshit. I don't think the problem has ever been God. It's people. For reconciliation it takes the two sides to deal with their issues and want to reunite. On God's side, there are no issues. There never were. He's always been waiting, wanting to reconcile with screwed up humanity. The onus is, and has always been on humanity to deal with our issues and want to reconcile with him. And the amazing thing is that he even gives us the opportunity and means to do that, through Christ.
I want all this to be true because, like you, I have real problems with the standard evangelical depiction of the atonement as solving a problem on God's side. But what about all the biblical stuff about, for example, blood being required for forgiveness? I can't remember the exact references or wording (brain not quite woken up yet!) but I'll look a few up if you like, unless someone else can help me out...

SCK, the reference is
Hebrews 9:21. But the context of the verse (indeed, of most of the book) is that of OT sacrifice. The blood of the sacrifice was nothing to do with punishment, but was a sign of commitment. The whole point of the sacrificial system was to remind people of the covenant promise of God to, amongst other things, remember our sins no more. Ancient near eastern culture saw blood sacrifice as a way of ratifying legally enforceable agreements' The point that the author of Hebrews was making was that God took His commitment to humanity so seriously that He was willing to shed His own Son's blood to guarantee the reliability of His promise.

It's worth noting that in the one OT incidence of sin transference, the scapegoat does not die, but is rather driven outside the camp, where, presumably, it continued to live its goaty existence until its natural tally of days was fulfilled.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The way that atonement is often presented is as if the problem is God. He's the one with the issues that need to be resolved. He can't forgive until XYZ. He needs a sacrifice before he can forgive. He can't stand to be in the presence of sin, and so on. I think that's bullshit. I don't think the problem has ever been God. It's people. For reconciliation it takes the two sides to deal with their issues and want to reunite. On God's side, there are no issues. There never were. He's always been waiting, wanting to reconcile with screwed up humanity. The onus is, and has always been on humanity to deal with our issues and want to reconcile with him. And the amazing thing is that he even gives us the opportunity and means to do that, through Christ.
I want all this to be true because, like you, I have real problems with the standard evangelical depiction of the atonement as solving a problem on God's side. But what about all the biblical stuff about, for example, blood being required for forgiveness? I can't remember the exact references or wording (brain not quite woken up yet!) but I'll look a few up if you like, unless someone else can help me out...

In my opinion, a mixture of cultural baggage, and the consequence of progressive understanding and revelation of God's character. What is interesting is that many Jews have gone through that process and no longer see animal sacrifice as necessary. Not because the ultimate sacrifice has been paid by Christ, but because it was a symbol that was a societal norm then, but is no longer relevant today (especially post-temple).

The real deal is what is going on underneath (the forgiveness, contrition, repentence), outward signs and symbols reveal and compliment that, but are not the thing itself. Animal sacrifice (or sackcloth and ashes, or fasting, or feasting, or whatever else) was a suitable symbol then, but we are free to use different symbols now.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

As you can see, but EE can't, SCK, progressive revelation is happening right here.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

This is the issue which made me give up attending church for a number of years because no clergyman could give me a resaonable explanation of why God appears to require someone to be killed before sins can be forgiven.

To dispose of two obvious points first: Jesus died because he was human. The manner of his death was becasue his preaching was seen by the occupying power in Jerusalem as subversive of Roman authority.

The problem I have is with the subsequent interpretations that the church has put on it.

I do not accept that blood needed to be shed in order to appease God - I agree with QLib that this is very bronze age, or, indeed Aztec. If that is the only permissible interpretation of Christ's death then Christianity is not for me and I will leave quietly.

Nor do I understand the concept of "rescuing us from death". Death is a natural end of life and I think it is unlikley that I will have some continued existence elsewhere (although I would not be so bold as to say it is impossible - physics teaches us that the universe is stranger than we can imagine). I once heard the point made taht you cannot experience being dead (as distinct from the process of dying) any more than you can experience anything before you were born, so why is it seen as a problem, beyond mere imagination or wishful thinking in life?

I find far more sense in Jolly Jape's suggestion that the significance of Jesus's death was a ratification of promise or contract in accordance with the legal customs of the culture of the time. I look forward to reading what other shipmates think about this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Gwalchmai

Your point about not being able to experience death - a friend said to me several years ago that there is no such thing as oblivion. Rather obvious, but it gave me quite a jolt.

I see Christ's death as utter self-abandonment, leading to at-one-ment with God. Of course, I have no evidence for this, beyond various experiences of self-abandonment which I have seen in other people, which seemed to lead to a God experience.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
This is the issue which made me give up attending church for a number of years because no clergyman could give me a resaonable explanation of why God appears to require someone to be killed before sins can be forgiven.

To dispose of two obvious points first: Jesus died because he was human. The manner of his death was becasue his preaching was seen by the occupying power in Jerusalem as subversive of Roman authority.

The problem I have is with the subsequent interpretations that the church has put on it.

I do not accept that blood needed to be shed in order to appease God - I agree with QLib that this is very bronze age, or, indeed Aztec. If that is the only permissible interpretation of Christ's death then Christianity is not for me and I will leave quietly.

Nor do I understand the concept of "rescuing us from death". Death is a natural end of life and I think it is unlikley that I will have some continued existence elsewhere (although I would not be so bold as to say it is impossible - physics teaches us that the universe is stranger than we can imagine). I once heard the point made taht you cannot experience being dead (as distinct from the process of dying) any more than you can experience anything before you were born, so why is it seen as a problem, beyond mere imagination or wishful thinking in life?

I find far more sense in Jolly Jape's suggestion that the significance of Jesus's death was a ratification of promise or contract in accordance with the legal customs of the culture of the time. I look forward to reading what other shipmates think about this.

Christ rescuing us from death is indeed impossible to imagine in terms of life after death - as you say. But He also rescues us from death in this life - salvation is happening here and now. It is perfectly capable to be alive but spiritually dead (ie, to experience Hell in this life). It is also capable to be alive but to experience, indeed to co-work with Christ to help establish, some of the Kingdom of Heaven in this life.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As He asked Himself: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)

The answer is in the verse you've quoted: "why then is it written?". Jesus chose to suffer much and be rejected so that the Scriptures - which are God's word written - might be fulfilled. It was a matter of prophetic obedience to the enscripturated revelation of the Father's divine will.

[ 11. December 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As He asked Himself: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)
The answer is in the verse you've quoted: "why then is it written?". Jesus chose to suffer much and be rejected so that the Scriptures - which are God's word written - might be fulfilled. It was a matter of prophetic obedience to the enscripturated revelation of the Father's divine will.

Eh? That doesn't make much sense. It seems the wrong way round, if you ask me.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As He asked Himself: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)
The answer is in the verse you've quoted: "why then is it written?". Jesus chose to suffer much and be rejected so that the Scriptures - which are God's word written - might be fulfilled. It was a matter of prophetic obedience to the enscripturated revelation of the Father's divine will.
Eh? That doesn't make much sense. It seems the wrong way round, if you ask me.

Indeed. Scripture obeys God, not the other way around. I get that what you are saying is that Christ obeyed Scripture, which contained God the Father's will written down. But even though God's will can be ascertained by reading Scripture (among other things), God's will and Scripture are two different things. I agree that one of the reasons Christ died was to obey the will of the Father. But the will of the father was precisely all the other reasons why Christ died: to overcome Sin/Death and to grant Eternal Life to all who reject Sin/Death and embrace love/life/God/Christ.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Mark 9: 11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.” NIV

Martin PC, it seems to me you and others are looking for elements in this text that are not there. There is nothing in it regarding Jesus choosing to die or otherwise, and has nothing to do with theories of the atonement. Perhaps the text could have been constructed more clearly, but this is what I make of it:

The teachers of the law had questioned Jesus’ claims because Elijah had not yet appeared to prepare the way for the Messiah. Jesus countered that Elijah had, indeed, appeared in the form of John the Baptist. If that was the case and Elijah had “restored all things” then why had Jesus’ Messiahship not been realised? Indeed, he was to suffer and be rejected. In response Jesus pointed out that Elijah (the Baptist) had been killed by the authorities, and he would suffer a similar fate. (Jesus, in other words, is not seeing his maltreatment in this instance as unique, but as being par for the course for prophets. Elsewhere he is more specific about this).

To my mind this is a simple statement of fact, and one should not attempt to read too much into it.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As He asked Himself: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)
The answer is in the verse you've quoted: "why then is it written?". Jesus chose to suffer much and be rejected so that the Scriptures - which are God's word written - might be fulfilled. It was a matter of prophetic obedience to the enscripturated revelation of the Father's divine will.
Eh? That doesn't make much sense. It seems the wrong way round, if you ask me.

Jesus was aware that submitting to opposition would fulfil scripture. He was also aware that his ministry fulfilled scripture. And that his false conviction would fulfil scripture. And that everything he did was a fulfilment of scripture. A simple search of the word "fulfilled" makes interesting reading with regard to what Jesus thought he was doing and why he was doing it.

[ 11. December 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And that everything he did was a fulfilment of scripture

That is one way of looking at it. My way is that Christ knew that he needed to die in order to defeat death for us, and that He would do so because he had already decided to forgive us.

But Christ knew that walking and talking his way to the cross would bring Him suffering and rejection simply because we humans always shoot the messenger.

In my opinion God already knew the scriptures would be fulfilled when His angel Gabriel appeared before Mary to ask if she would consent to carry His son. That was when God decided to forgive us fully and completely, and begin the long walk to the cross so He (as Christ) could truly break deaths grip over us, freeing us from an eternity in the soil, and giving us instead eternal life in heaven.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

What makes you think that God sought Mary's consent in the way you suggest? Gabriel's message to Mary reads more like a statement of fact, not a business proposal. I don't think God's salvation plan hinged on Mary's submission in that way. It seems to me that Mary's submission was preveniently empowered by God's grace, and was in that sense, was entirely predictable from the divine perspective.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And that everything he did was a fulfilment of scripture
That is one way of looking at it. My way is that Christ knew that he needed to die in order to defeat death for us, and that He would do so because he had already decided to forgive us.

It seems to me that your view is entirely compatible with mine. Although, I'd suggest that Jesus - in his humanity - didn't "just know" that he had to die via some kind of "sixth sense"; he discovered it through his reading of the Law and the Prophets and - as far as his death is concerned - drew attention to fulfilment when he saw it.

[ 11. December 2013, 18:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
This is the issue which made me give up attending church for a number of years because no clergyman could give me a reasonable explanation of why God appears to require someone to be killed before sins can be forgiven.

Shortly after I'd had some kind of born-again experience, and was wildly enthusiastic over all things Jesus and Church , an elderly life-long Church-goer,(known to me), asked if I understood the Bible . Can't really remember what I replied , however she then went on to say , with obvious anger and upset in her voice, "God murdered Jesus".
This person died some years later , sadly in rather a depressed condition . It left me thinking that if we don't really *get* this business of Jesus' death, more importantly having it the right way round in our minds , then it can be the cause of a massive anxiety as opposed to any kind of joy.

As a bit of an aside, I think seeing many South Africans dancing and celebrating after mandela's death was announced might give us a clue as to how best to respond to Jesus's death , His choice die and , the real biggie , the fact that God planned it.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Although, I'd suggest that Jesus - in his humanity - didn't "just know" that he had to die via some kind of "sixth sense"; he discovered it through his reading of the Law and the Prophets and - as far as his death is concerned - drew attention to fulfilment when he saw it.

But I would - and do - disagree. I believe Christ did "just know", but through his divinity not his humanity.

I think He already knew he would die in order to get Himself to a point where He could defeat eternal death for us.

I think He pointed out to us doubtful humans where He was fulfilling the scriptures rather than Him reading the scriptures and realising He was fulfilling them.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
This is the issue which made me give up attending church for a number of years because no clergyman could give me a resaonable explanation of why God appears to require someone to be killed before sins can be forgiven.

To dispose of two obvious points first: Jesus died because he was human. The manner of his death was becasue his preaching was seen by the occupying power in Jerusalem as subversive of Roman authority.

The problem I have is with the subsequent interpretations that the church has put on it.

This is shared by many. God didn't and doesn't lots of stuff people say God does. The people killed Jesus. Fulfillment of scripture and a continuation of the images from the OT of a punitive God? Loved by some, rejected by others.God just worked with what happened. if Jesus hadn't died then, would have worked with the circumstance of him living, and being God could have any number of alternative theologies not involving redemption by death - or could have had people telling different stories about their construction of God. My God doesn't require crucifixion, but just used what happened.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Sometimes I think that one explanation for some questions of this sort is that God is absolutely committed to human beings having free will. Could he by fiat change the minds of the Jewish elders and Roman officials? Yes, but he is not willing to operate human beings as puppets.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Sometimes I think that one explanation for some questions of this sort is that God is absolutely committed to human beings having free will. Could he by fiat change the minds of the Jewish elders and Roman officials? Yes, but he is not willing to operate human beings as puppets.

I think what you've said is key re free will. Allowing us miserable creatures freedom. We use it how we will. God then works with the material (us and the situation).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Kwesi:

As you opened up the context, let's keep going:

Mark 9:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.

Matthew 16:21–22

Jesus Predicts His Death

16:21–28; Mk 8:31–9:1; Lk 9:22–27

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The narrative from Genesis via the Psalms and Isaiah through the bloody gospels to the good news of the cross of Paul and beyond is that Jesus HAD to die to save us.

That we could not be saved - in THIS life - without His death, beyond all its symbolism, all its metaphor. Only us killing Him and realising it could shock us enough out of our sin.

Without His death our lives would have no meaning.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Sometimes I think that one explanation for some questions of this sort is that God is absolutely committed to human beings having free will. Could he by fiat change the minds of the Jewish elders and Roman officials? Yes, but he is not willing to operate human beings as puppets.

Exactly.

I have created my own little analogy to help myself understand it... God as Gardener!

Bear with me, it might make some sense.

To create a lovely garden I have two choices, I can plant a lawn of Astroturf, make borders of brown painted concrete and embed in it some beautiful artificial flowers and shrubs. There you have it, a low maintenance garden full of colour all year round and without the hassle of weeding and dealing with bugs and disease.

Or I can have a real grass lawn that I have to mow and feed and scarify; and borders of real soil that needs to be dug and manured, and with real plants that need weeding and feeding and watching for insect attack and whose flowers only last for a short while if they actually bother to even live to the flowering stage!

As a gardener I want the second version please. It is real and the pleasure I get from those few short lived flowers are worth all of the blood, sweat and tears to get them. I don’t want the first version. No gardener would. Some people would of course but they are not gardeners.

God could have given us a lovely planet to live on with no natural disasters lurking around the place, and He could have made us love him and each other, with no nasty thoughts or ill-will or war or disease or anything to get in our way of loving Him.

But instead He created a universe that spawned a crappy little planet with all sorts of natural disaster just waiting to kill us, and riddled with things that want to kill us or give us diseases. Then He gave us free will. It’s a surprise that any of us love Him. But we do, and we do love each other more or less. How shocking is that!

But like the gardener who wants the real over the artificial, God wants us because we can love, because we are real, and that small bit of love makes it all worthwhile for Him. He could have made us love Him, but would it be real love? Of course not, it cannot be, just like an artificial flower isn’t a flower. It is an approximation. It might look okay but a real gardener knows it is fake and our real, living God knows artificial love that doesn’t grow out of the rocky poor soil of human existence, is also fake.

Which is why I say that the ability to love is why God wants to save all of us, to bring all of us into heaven.

Again all my own opinion, and yes it’s an analogy and will break down sooner rather than later, but I suppose it explains my thinking, flaws and all.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Martin PC

quote:
Without His death our lives would have no meaning.

Gosh, Martin! There's so much in your last post that it's difficult to know where to begin or identify the line of argument you wished pursued.

Just to move things on let me question your conclusion that the death of Christ gives our lives meaning. ISTM that the event which gives Christianity it's meaning is the Resurrection. Is it not that which gives meaning to the life of Christ and the rest of us hope of heaven?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Of course Kwesi. But first and most dreadfully, seriously, as serious as sin, blackly, bloodily, bleakly, unjustly, inescapably, propitiatingly, sacrificially, overwhelmingly, chokingly, gaggingly, horrifically, vilely, mercilessly comes THE Death.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

OK, Martin, but what does the Resurrection tell us about the death?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That death is defeated. That death, the penalty of sin, of failure, of inadequacy; the ironic reward, is paid. And if death is defeated, so is sin. NOW. We can start again, NOW. This instant. Live in eternal life NOW. Every instant. Have meaning NOW. Have something to live and die for NOW. Everything is redeemed FROM now, all will be, is restituted, reborn, restored, resolved, ransomed, healed, forgiven from now.

As the materialist rationalists among us say, for there to be life, there must be death. Even though they don't mean it that way, just mundanely.

What does it tell you?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Sometimes I think that one explanation for some questions of this sort is that God is absolutely committed to human beings having free will. Could he by fiat change the minds of the Jewish elders and Roman officials? Yes, but he is not willing to operate human beings as puppets.

ISTM, that it's people who are absolutely committed to free will, not God. The problem with theology predicated on free will is that it the bible seems to say so very little about it. It just seems to be an easy assumption to make in the face of genuinely hard questions. Superficially, it provides a path of least resistance but it seems to lead to a theology which is founded on speculative presuppositions.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape
Despite what EE writes, I see no scriptural evidence for the assertion that God is being capricious in his forgiveness, He's an equal opportunity forgiver, and always has been, right from Eden.

I also can't see any scriptural evidence for the assertion that God is being capricious in his forgiveness, so I can't quite understand the phrase "despite what EE writes"!

Perhaps you would like to explain. Or better still, why don't you actually make the effort to read what I wrote, instead of seeing what you want to see?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
The problem with theology predicated on free will is that it the bible seems to say so very little about it. It just seems to be an easy assumption to make in the face of genuinely hard questions. Superficially, it provides a path of least resistance but it seems to lead to a theology which is founded on speculative presuppositions.

I don't really know what your problem is with people making easy assumptions and walking the path of least resistance. It's not as though they have chosen to do that, given that they don't have free will (according to your theology). So you ought to accept their behaviour as something ordained by God. After all, you wouldn't want to resist the will of the sovereign God now, would you?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I guess my "problem" is that Scripture seems to point away from free will as the simple answer to problems of theodicy. It's easy to trot free will off as a catch-all solution without accounting sufficiently for a lack of clear evidence for it in scripture while denying the possible evidence for another, more complex and perhaps less appealing, explanation.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That death is defeated. That death, the penalty of sin, of failure, of inadequacy; the ironic reward, is paid. And if death is defeated, so is sin. NOW. We can start again, NOW. This instant. Live in eternal life NOW. Every instant. Have meaning NOW. Have something to live and die for NOW. Everything is redeemed FROM now, all will be, is restituted, reborn, restored, resolved, ransomed, healed, forgiven from now.

Death and life are the same thing. For some people at least. In both senses of the sameness - though for different people. Something to shoot for. Or at. One foot is both the same.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
It's easy to trot free will off as a catch-all solution without accounting sufficiently for a lack of clear evidence for it in scripture while denying the possible evidence for another, more complex and perhaps less appealing, explanation.

Yeah, but if people don't have free will, then those who "trot free will off as a catch-all solution" etc... are only doing so, because the sovereign God has ordained that that is the way they should think. That, I'm afraid, is the implication of your theology. Therefore if you criticise such people, then you are resisting the will of God.

Any attempt to deny free will is obviously self-refuting. But it seems you want to have your cake and eat it...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
It's easy to trot free will off as a catch-all solution without accounting sufficiently for a lack of clear evidence for it in scripture while denying the possible evidence for another, more complex and perhaps less appealing, explanation.
Yeah, but if people don't have free will, then those who "trot free will off as a catch-all solution" etc... are only doing so, because the sovereign God has ordained that that is the way they should think. That, I'm afraid, is the implication of your theology. Therefore if you criticise such people, then you are resisting the will of God.

Any attempt to deny free will is obviously self-refuting. But it seems you want to have your cake and eat it...

People are able to choose what they want to believe, but they're not able to choose what they should believe. You clearly want to believe that you are sovereign. That's your choice.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
You clearly want to believe that you are sovereign.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
You clearly want to believe that you are sovereign.

Yes, point taken. The ascription of clarity was an overstatement.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

I was talking about justice, and the fact that God, being just, must uphold justice. Evil has consequences, which therefore need to be dealt with. A God who, by virtue of being the ultimate authority, can just decide to forgive evil, by pretending that that evil does not require a response consistent with justice, is a God who acts arbitrarily. In other words, this concept of God is one which subverts law. Is such a God trustworthy? Do you think a person is trustworthy who can just make up and abolish the moral law as he goes along? If you can trust such a fickle being, then I'm happy for you. But I'm afraid I cannot.

As for innocent blood washing away the sin of the guilty: in a legal sense it can. But that is not to say that there are not other aspects of the atonement which relate to sanctification. Certainly we can be delivered from the power of evil. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously doesn't believe in the reality of salvation.

"How very Bronze Age of you" - I couldn't care less whether any of my views reflect the beliefs of any particular age of history. I am more concerned with what is actually true. Truth is not dependent on novelty. I think that is rather obvious, don't you think?

As for your interpretation of the so called Parable of the Prodigal Son, well, that is a clear case of misapplying an analogy. And I can't really see your point about our need to forgive others. Do you think I am disputing that fact? [/QB]

EE, can you help me with this please, because I genuinely don't understand your reasoning.

A just god cannot forgive the guilty and let them go without some consequence. Yes, (if we can take it upon ourselves to tell God what God can or cannot do), I can see that as valid.

But God can choose to punish the innocent (and Jesus was innocent) and then let the guilty go without punishing them. That is justice? I don't think I'd trust a person who did that. Why should I trust a god?

Can you explain how punishing the innocent is more just than punishing no one?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
ISTM, that it's people who are absolutely committed to free will, not God. The problem with theology predicated on free will is that it the bible seems to say so very little about it. It just seems to be an easy assumption to make in the face of genuinely hard questions. Superficially, it provides a path of least resistance but it seems to lead to a theology which is founded on speculative presuppositions.

The Bible is silent on a whole range of subjects, why single out free will.

Let's put it this way, it LOOKS and FEELS as though we have free will, and the Bible is - as you say - silent on the matter, so why not assume we DO have free will?

We have modern medicines and the Bible is - as far as I know, which isn't much I admit - silent on that subject, so we are free to use modern medicines.

Why therefore are we to be denied free will if we are not denied modern medicines?

I chose to believe we do have free will unless there is sufficient evidence to show it is wrong, and that evidence - whether philosophical, scientific or Biblical - is lacking.

I must admit to worrying about The Bible. It wasn't put together until three hundred years or so after Christ was born and there are just so many issues over translation and interpretation, not to mention it's inconsistencies and more horrific parts and that God has gifted us so much in the intervening two thousand years, that I cannot take it seriously as a definitive guide to modern living.

Some say it is a light, showing us the way. I agree. It does show us the way, but when you get to a fork in the road we still have to decide. It only illuminates the different paths clearly, we still get to decide. Having chosen the path, the Bible then casts its light on our new road.

It illuminates and guides. It doesn't decide for us.

But that's a different thread. I just wanted to explain why I have no qualms at all about discarding those parts of the Bible that appear to just be wrong by any modern standard. And blood sacrifice is one of those areas for me personally.

[ 12. December 2013, 08:24: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape
[b]Despite what EE writes, I see no scriptural evidence for the assertion that God is being capricious in his forgiveness, He's an equal opportunity forgiver, and always has been, right from Eden.[b]
I also can't seeany scriptural evidence for the assertion that God is being capricious in his forgiveness, so I can't quite understand the phrase "despite what EE writes"!

Perhaps you would like to explain. Or better still, why don't you actually make the effort to read what I wrote, instead of seeing what you want to see?

Not ignoring you, EE. Will respond when I have a mop.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Since ancient Egypt fate in the afterlife is dependent on the weight of ones heart, faith, works in the scales of justice.

In Christianity we are all found to be too heavy. Jesus' offsets the weight.

If one needs such a balancing act.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

There's just a couple of thoughts that have been buzzing round my mind about this:

1) I take the point that Jesus may not have said at any point, "Right I'm going to go and be crucified" or something similar (appreciate that may be a bit of a strawman). But having acknowledged that the (metaphorical and literal) path he's on is going to lead to rejection and suffering, is going to lead to his death basically, Jesus still chooses to follow it. He could quite easily have realised what awaited him in Jerusalem and changed what he was saying, or laid low and let the fuss died down, or gone into exile - but he didn't, he chose to keep doing what he was doing, knowing the consequences of it. ISTM that on that basis, you can say in some way that Jesus did choose to die, in that he chose to follow a path that would lead to his death.

2) Several people have argued against the justice of the cross on the grounds that it involves God causing an innocent person to suffer in the place of the guilty. But surely that doesn't take the Trinity and Incarnation fully into account? If Jesus is somehow God, then it's not a case of God taking an innocent third party and heaping all the punishment on them, but of God taking on the consequences of evil and wickedness and injustice on God's self in Jesus?
So the guilty can be justly forgiven, not because a third party has been coerced or sweet-talked by God into taking their punishment, but because God Himself, in Jesus, has done so.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
ISTM, that it's people who are absolutely committed to free will, not God. The problem with theology predicated on free will is that it the bible seems to say so very little about it. It just seems to be an easy assumption to make in the face of genuinely hard questions. Superficially, it provides a path of least resistance but it seems to lead to a theology which is founded on speculative presuppositions.
The Bible is silent on a whole range of subjects, why single out free will.

I didn't say the bible is silent on the issue, but the reason I singled out free will was because it is most unwise to found one's entire hermeneutic principle - including one's soteriology - on a concept about which the bible says very little, if anything, about. If people were insisting that the "key" to understanding the bible was Freudian psychoanalysis in the same way as many people seem to do with free-will, I would be singling that out instead.

[ 12. December 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

For the inappropriate apostrophe ... mea culpa.

Like it Stejjie. God pronounces the death sentence on us for there is nothing in us, of us that can atone, fix the past, make up for the harm we have inevitably, 'freely', fecklessly done others and thus our selves, which to execute all He has to do is nothing, let His autonomous thoughts (us) come to nothing and He steps in to that void.

NOW.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

punishment? justice? choosing? You guys are crazy. Black and grey in a storm of white.

to quote the other guy "Where is the love?"

Honestly His heart broke, for love. And to be more exact; Love for YOU. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Always wins.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Thanks for that, Pyx_e! [Overused]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Pyx_e. I include myself under the crazy umbrella. And I'm not being funny. I'm sure I should because I'm using the language Jesus and the NT writers used. And that's NOT claiming any kind of spurious authority or a trump card. You are RIGHT. 1000% right.

How are we to deal with the language? Jesus' own language? Yes I KNOW as metaphor, I know it was culturally appropriate and constrained, including in His own human cosnciousness DESPITE His transcendence, that progressive revelation includes it and transcends it, sees it and raises it.

Gotta go!

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Martin PC, try context!

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
I didn't say the bible is silent on the issue, but the reason I singled out free will was because it is most unwise to found one's entire hermeneutic principle - including one's soteriology - on a concept about which the bible says very little, if anything, about. If people were insisting that the "key" to understanding the bible was Freudian psychoanalysis in the same way as many people seem to do with free-will, I would be singling that out instead.

Interestingly the Bible says very little explicitly about the deity of Christ.

Nothing explicitly about the Trinity.

On the subject of free will, the Bible says a huge amount (almost every page) about this subject in terms of logical implication rather than explicitly using the term "free will" or similar terms, such as "choose / choice" etc. All the exhortations to man to repent imply the reality of human responsibility. In fact, if there is one theme that characterises the Bible after the existence of God, it is human moral responsibility, and God's recognition that man is able to exercise it properly.

[ 12. December 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Romans 8:7-8
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The thinking and willing of fallen humanity is fatally compromised by the flesh, so much so that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Cannot.

I'm not seeing freedom here; I'm seeing inability.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbour as yourself.’”

And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ So which of these three do you think was neighbour to him who fell among the thieves?”

And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”...

...(even though you're totally incapable of doing so because of original sin and total depravity, so I don't know why I even bothered to tell this parable...)

[ 12. December 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm doing that Kwesi. As I said. Late Iron Age culture. So what do I lack? What am I missing?

Is my OP question wrong? Has His consciousness expanded in us so that in hindsight we say His death wasn't necessary? Or it wasn't then the first time round? (I'm sure you see all the paradoxes.)

What?

Am I clinging to full blown PSA by the back door?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

EE, the conversation has moved on somewhat, but the sentence to which I was responding was this:

quote:
originally posted by Etymological Evangelical
Well, I would say that it is because God cannot "just forgive" by an act of authority.

My point was that God can, in fact, forgive whomever He wants, without respect to whether or not they repent, hence, an equal opportunity forgiver. Forgiveness is always in the gift of the forgiver. Justice is never violated by forgiveness, any more than punishment can bring about justice. Only forgiveness and restoration, the undoing of wrong, can accomplish that.

I can only assume that maybe there was some imprecision of expression which led you to believe that I hadn't made the effort to read your post, though I think it a bit unfair for you to infer that I was "seeing what (I) want to see".

Nevertheless, what I wrote clearly irritated you in some way, for which I apologise.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nothing you wrote irritated EE, JJ. It's not what goes in to a man ...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”...

...(even though you're totally incapable of doing so because of original sin and total depravity, so I don't know why I even bothered to tell this parable...) Yes, but we need to ask where the ability to obey originates.

quote:
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Deuteronomy 30:6

The promise of the Fathet is that by the Spirit he will circumcise hearts so that they they can love and obey him. Where Christ commands he empowers. He was filled with the Spirit: a walking Pentecost.

quote:
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. Romans 2:29

quote:
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.Acts 2:37-38

God circumcised their hearts, then they repented and believed. The circumcision enabled them. It made their hearts tender toward God. It fulfilled Deuteronomy 30:6 and precipitated Romans 2:29.

[ 13. December 2013, 07:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I think it's important to be clear on what we mean by free will, if we are not to end up talking past one another. How much freedom do we need to have for our will to be considered "free"? Clearly, we are all "free" to make choices, but are we able to see those choices through into our actions. Even if we are, by our own willpower, able to eschew certain sins, do other sins "slip in by the back door" as it were. Thus we might refrain from, say, stealing, but we might become proud as a result. If we are to talk this way, is God any more pleased with us?

My own view is that free will is a good idea spoiled by the reality of the human condition. In the songwriter's words, "we can promise all we want to, but we can't make it stick".

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Martin PC

quote:
I'm doing that [ looking at context] Kwesi. As I said. Late Iron Age culture. So what do I lack? What am I missing?
Is my OP question wrong? Has His consciousness expanded in us so that in hindsight we say His death wasn't necessary? Or it wasn't then the first time round? (I'm sure you see all the paradoxes.)
What?
Am I clinging to full blown PSA by the back door?

I'm not entirely sure you are taking context into account, Martin PC. The question you ask is “Why did Jesus choose to die?”, and you offer in support of your query “Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?” My problem is that your question centred on “choice” does not arise from the supporting text or context. You need to establish that Jesus did, indeed, choose to die, and in what sense(s) he exercised that choice.

ISTM that the question of Jesus "choosing to die" does not exclusively support any particular atonement theory . The disagreement between supporters of the different theories would be over the question "Why did Jesus die the way he did?"

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC....
Nothing you wrote irritated EE, JJ.

Excuse me, but don't you think that it is not actually down to you to decide what has or has not irritated me?

Sheesh... Talk about presumption! [Disappointed]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I've said this before on the Ship, but for my take on Jesus 'choosing' to die I find it helpful to compare Him to people like Martin Luther King: they didn't want to die, but they couldn't abandon their people either.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm doing that Kwesi. As I said. Late Iron Age culture. So what do I lack? What am I missing?

Is my OP question wrong? Has His consciousness expanded in us so that in hindsight we say His death wasn't necessary? Or it wasn't then the first time round? (I'm sure you see all the paradoxes.)

What?

Am I clinging to full blown PSA by the back door?

All people die, and upon death face judgement and something called "the second death". The fact that the wages of sin is death covers, I believe, both the first physical death and second spiritual death which is spiritual separation from God.

The testimony of scripture is that death is the way into God's presence. It's how everyone meets their maker. In this sense we all need to die because we are all under the sentence of death. In this sense Jesus didn't need to die.

I'm inclined towards a view which I will call Vicarious Substitutionary Atonement or Penalty via Mystical Union. It is still penal in the sense that it rests on the biblical assertion that the wages of sin is death. But it is not penal in the sense that Jesus' death on the cross involved the active, hostile, retributive, personal, time-bound wrath of God the Father against the person of God the Son during the crucifixion.

It is penal in the sense that death is the penalty for sin and Jesus chose to experience that penalty, by means of the cross, not so that we don't have to die, but so that by virtue of union with him we can say that we ourselves have died in him and have therefore received the wages of our sin already.

So it is possible to call this theory Vicarious Substitutionary Atonement or, perhaps, Penalty via Mystical Union.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As He asked Himself: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)

Under SA/PSA because if Jesus had not done so then God would have continued to torture humanity unmercifully. It was the one thing big enough to get God to stop.

Under my reading of the bible, because Jesus was a fanatic who was not going to back down against oppression or stop upsetting both the Roman and the Jewish hierarchy.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

EE, it's what comes OUT of a man.

LeRoc. If MLK could have avoided the JER's bullet, he would have done. Like any of us.

daronmedway. I don't understand. Jesus fully, knowingly, went to His death in His terms, in terms of the entire narrative up to and including then regardless of how great The Consciousness, The Awareness, The Understanding - the consciousness, awareness, understanding of God [the Son] - interesected with His human mind. He went in terms that everyone up to that time, including Himself and all the NT writers, especially Paul, understood as penal substitution to satisfy the justice of God.

And all theories since that DON'T repudiate it, include it.

So was Jesus wrong?

Is His Consciousness now revealing that to us?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Is there a difference between choosing to die and wanting to die (or between choosing and wanting to do anything, for that matter)? To take a purely trivial example: I helped out for 3/4 hour in our church cafe today when they were a member of staff down. I didn't want to, but chose to (I was pretty terrible at it, but still...).

To me, Gethsemane suggests Jesus didn't want to die (if there had been another way, it seems like he'd have chose it) - very few people do want to die, in the sense of actively choosing it as the thing they most desire to do (unless the situation is so bad that it really does seem like the only option). But, ISTM he did choose to die in the sense that, at the very least, he knew the vocation he was called to follow led would lead him, or that some greater good for others (the nation? the world?) would result from his sacrifice.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: LeRoc. If MLK could have avoided the JER's bullet, he would have done. Like any of us.

That's true. And Jesus probably would have done the same thing. But then someone else would have fired another bullet. Or some other way would have been found to silence him. Until the only way he could have avoided death was to abandon the struggle, abandon his people. This he could not do.

[ 13. December 2013, 12:43: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

He dodged bullets at least a couple of times, in Nazareth and Jerusalem, until the time was right, until his teaching was done.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: He dodged bullets at least a couple of times, in Nazareth and Jerusalem, until the time was right, until his teaching was done.

He did. My interpretation of this is that He managed to avoid being caught and murdered for some time, until He reached a point where the only way to keep avoiding this was to abandon His stand with the powerless.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

The father of lies fired the bullet, at me (and you) not Jesus. Jesus, in one miracle at one time, took every bullet .

I am not worthy of such love and so maybe I make up excuses (PSA) so as to cover His nature and my unwillingness to walk in the light. But come on my brother just this once, you and I, let us dare. The self hate, the apathy, the sheer ungratefulness, the longing for home and the fear of being rejected can we not just put it away for once?

As a human he had to choose, free will it's a bitch, he choose to walk to Calvary so we can see what love looks like. As for words? The word He used to the penitent thief for “paradise” is the same word they used to describe Eden. He described the horror of shit and blood and torture as the road back to Eden. How can it be?

Fly Safe,

Pyx_e

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: He dodged bullets at least a couple of times, in Nazareth and Jerusalem, until the time was right, until his teaching was done.
He did. My interpretation of this is that He managed to avoid being caught and murdered for some time, until He reached a point where the only way to keep avoiding this was to abandon His stand with the powerless.

That's not an interpretation. It's a completely different "gospel".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
daronmedway: That's not an interpretation. It's a completely different "gospel".

Maybe it is (except for the part of the word "gospel" being between scare quotes).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Looks perfectly orthodox to me.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
daronmedway: That's not an interpretation. It's a completely different "gospel".
Maybe it is

No its not. The good news (gospel) is certainly most vividly described as being for the powerless: especially in the Gospel of Luke. Your interpretation is valid.

*****

As for the free-will debate: biblically the odds are in favour by about 80 - 20.

The majority of the Old Testament is about free-will.

[ 13. December 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And Pyx_e. Most moving mate. Most.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
daronmedway: That's not an interpretation. It's a completely different "gospel".
Maybe it is
No its not. The good news (gospel) is certainly most vividly described as being for the powerless: especially in the Gospel of Luke. Your interpretation is valid.

Not if The Gospel according to John is in your bible.

quote:
As for the free-will debate: biblically the odds are in favour by about 80 - 20.

[ 13. December 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What He didn't overcome power by being powerless at the hands of the powerless for them?

Agree on freewill. Utterly meaningless.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What He didn't overcome power by being powerless at the hands of the powerless for them?

Agree on freewill. Utterly meaningless.

I don't take issue with Jesus standing with the powerless; I take issue with LeRoc's idea that Jesus' earthly ministry was about avoiding death in some murderous parody of the Benny Hill Show.

[ 13. December 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
daronmedway: I take issue with LeRoc's idea that Jesus' earthly ministry was about avoiding death in some murderous parody of the Benny Hill Show.

I guess we're dealing with a false dichotomy here. His ministry wasn't about avoiding death, but in my opinion He didn't choose or seek death either.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

There's a vast difference in God needing to have a blood sacrifice of a human being and choosing to force or make that happen, and a person pursuing a path that will definitely bring them into conflict with the authorities and of his own volition refusing to stop even if, and even because they kill him.

The atonement message has, in my life experience, drowned out the other facets of Jesus' life and death, such that if forced to accept this now after years of sorting out that this is not the centre, then I am not the right sort of Christian and perhaps not Christian at all in some views. I am not sustained by the killer god version at all, and am well sustained by the faithful Jesus version. I am not aware that not accepting the atonement-blood sacrifice model is a absolute requirement and was God's plan before Jesus' birth, sort of a 'raising veal' kind of model (if you know how veal is raised). That God could use the circumstances of Jesus death for something, that's another story, but cause it, God would be a cosmic a-hole if did that and rejectable.

If appears that the places where sustenance are found vary among us.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
daronmedway: I take issue with LeRoc's idea that Jesus' earthly ministry was about avoiding death in some murderous parody of the Benny Hill Show.
I guess we're dealing with a false dichotomy here. His ministry wasn't about avoiding death, but in my opinion He didn't choose or seek death either.

What does Luke 9:51 mean?

quote:
When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

LeRoc, that's not what the narrative says. Even though He tried not too AND was free not to.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
daronmedway: What does Luke 9:51 mean?

I'm sorry, I don't read the Bible in the way you do.

My take on why He went to Jerusalem was that He had stood with the poor and the powerless in the countryside already for some time, but the root of the problem was in Jerusalem, so it's there that He should go, even if He knew that it was dangerous.

Of course, the people who wrote the Gospels two generations after His Ascenscion looked back at the whole story and saw His decision to go there as the beginning of the end, especially since they connected everything strongly to OT prophecies.

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: LeRoc, that's not what the narrative says. Even though He tried not too AND was free not to.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. He tried not to do what?

[ 13. December 2013, 14:53: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
daronmedway: What does Luke 9:51 mean?
I'm sorry, I don't read the Bible in the way you do.

Tell me how you read the verse then, because it sounds very much like you're saying, "It doesn't matter that what Luke 9:51 says because I've got my own personal take on things." Now, it may be that you're OK with that sort of approach to theological reflection but it doesn't really amount anything more than speculation.

[ 13. December 2013, 15:23: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
daronmedway: Tell me how you read the verse then

I just did. What is it you don't understand about my explanation?

quote:
daronmedway: because it sounds very much like you're saying, "It doesn't matter that what Luke 9:51 says because I've got my own personal take on things."

Everyone has their own take on how they read the Bible, including you. But I don't really want to go into a DH discussion on Bible 'literality/inerrancy' now.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

He tried not to die in Gethsemane. Where He also did not take up His freedom to not die.

And your personal take is as fine as mine or daronmedway's.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: He tried not to die in Gethsemane. Where He also did not take up His freedom to not die.

Exactly. He could have abandoned everything there and then. He had the freedom to do so. But to do this would mean abandoning everything He stood for, abandoning His people.

Interestingly, I've found out that the Bible text daronmedway referred to (Luke 9:51-62) had a special meaning for those who fought for civil rights for black people in the USA. "Keep Your Hand On The Plow" refers directly to verse 62. I've read various sermons linking this text with what it must have been like for MLK to willingly go to a dangerous place.

[ 13. December 2013, 16:52: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Daronmedway

quote:
What does Luke 9:51 mean?
quote:
When the days drew near for him to be taken up [to heaven], he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

I guess, Daronmedway, it means what it says. The subordinate clause is an insertion by Luke to indicate events immediately prior to the crucifixion, and the main clause that Jesus was determined to go to Jerusalem. What else is it supposed to mean?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
daronmedway: That's not an interpretation. It's a completely different "gospel".
Maybe it is
No its not. The good news (gospel) is certainly most vividly described as being for the powerless: especially in the Gospel of Luke. Your interpretation is valid.

Not if The Gospel according to John is in your bible.

You think the Gospel of John contradicts the Gospel of Luke? Fair enough. They are quite different. John's gospel is certainly higher Christology and borders or gnosticism sometimes.

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
As for the free-will debate: biblically the odds are in favour by about 80 - 20.

Yeah you're right. It's probably more like 95 - 5

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
daronmedway: What does Luke 9:51 mean?
I'm sorry, I don't read the Bible in the way you do.

My take on why He went to Jerusalem was that He had stood with the poor and the powerless in the countryside already for some time, but the root of the problem was in Jerusalem, so it's there that He should go, even if He knew that it was dangerous.

Well said.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, he went to Jerusalem because they had the best matzo in Jerusalem. Jesus was willing to risk death to use that matzo in his Passover. There isn't much evidence of that in the Bible. But, hey, my way of reading it is just as valid as any other.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Not its not. As you said, there isn't much evidence of that in the Bible.

For liberation theology (which seems to be Le Roc's leanings) there is plenty.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Whereas daronmedway's position comes more from a very particular Reformation theology angle that has less biblical support.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not its not. As you said, there isn't much evidence of that in the Bible.

For liberation theology (which seems to be Le Roc's leanings) there is plenty.

No there isn't.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Whereas daronmedway's position comes more from a very particular Reformation theology angle that has less biblical support.

It has plenty of biblical support.

[ 14. December 2013, 04:13: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not its not. As you said, there isn't much evidence of that in the Bible.

For liberation theology (which seems to be Le Roc's leanings) there is plenty.
No there isn't.

Yes there is.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Whereas daronmedway's position comes more from a very particular Reformation theology angle that has less biblical support.
It has plenty of biblical support.

I didn't say there was none.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Oh, for goodness sake! Jesus' identification with the poor and powerless is written all over the Gospels, certainly all over the Semaics. That doesn't mean that those actions did not spring from a conscious decision of His to cooperate with the Father in an eternal mission to redeem the whole of the cosmos, reconciling all things to Himself. You'd think the two were contradictory aims!

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Sorry, Synoptics, of course.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Yep, I think I'd agree with Jolly Jape - in fact, to a certain degree I'm reluctant to rule out any way of interpreting the Cross (even some form of PSA, though seeing it as God's act of love by substituting himself, rather than someone else). I just think something as significant as the cross can't be limited to one particular interpretation - and I don't think the NT, taken as a whole, does limit it.

The only thing I have about the interpretation put forward by LeRoc is that, on its own, it kind of seems a bit... futile. Jesus stands with the poor and the needy and the outcasts, even to the point of His own death at the hands of the powerful and then... what? If you're not careful with it, it can leave things exactly as they were: the powerful are still powerful, the poor, needy and outcasts are still all those things and the one they'd pinned their hopes on is dead. For all the nobility of Jesus' sacrifice, on its own it doesn't do much to actually change their situation. Certainly, ISTM, you need the resurrection to carry the story beyond that. But that's not a deal-breaker for me.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Stejjie wrote:

quote:
The only thing I have about the interpretation put forward by LeRoc is that, on its own, it kind of seems a bit... futile. Jesus stands with the poor and the needy and the outcasts, even to the point of His own death at the hands of the powerful and then... what? If you're not careful with it, it can leave things exactly as they were: the powerful are still powerful, the poor, needy and outcasts are still all those things and the one they'd pinned their hopes on is dead. For all the nobility of Jesus' sacrifice, on its own it doesn't do much to actually change their situation. Certainly, ISTM, you need the resurrection to carry the story beyond that...

I seem to recall that the Vatican's critique of Liberation Theology* was something like that. It was not that it had a radical orientation towards the poor and the dispossessed - so did Jesus. It was that it had a defective Christology.

(* so-called. I presume there are other liberation theologies that don't suffer from this)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
For all the nobility of Jesus' sacrifice, on its own it doesn't do much to actually change their situation. Certainly, ISTM, you need the resurrection to carry the story beyond that.

If Jesus wasn't raised and vindicated....there would be no liberation theology.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Oh, for goodness sake! Jesus' identification with the poor and powerless is written all over the Gospels, certainly all over the Semaics. That doesn't mean that those actions did not spring from a conscious decision of His to cooperate with the Father in an eternal mission to redeem the whole of the cosmos, reconciling all things to Himself. You'd think the two were contradictory aims!

I don't have a problem with your statement.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Stejjie, the staggering thing isn't the Resurrection. The power ISN'T in the Resurrection. Jesus was Divine and the Divine CANNOT die. But to share in life and death, to be essence in that candle and for the candle to be snuffed out, to be a Person of God constrained to a twitching maggot from a literal egg and have that feeling, thinking creature that You suffuse and express yourself through as one of two perichoretic wills and to have it ripped from you in mind robbing, overwhelming agony ... that's powerful.

That's identifying with abject weakness, with powerlessness as powerfully as possible.

The resurrection of such an entity is indeed awesome and what an entity, what an imago. STILL a twin willed being surely! What a mystery.

But that death, THE Death.

We must NEVER underestimate its power, its symbolism. It is THE razor edged tipping point of the pivotal event between the eternities.

It does EVERYTHING claimed then and now.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Evensong: For liberation theology (which seems to be Le Roc's leanings) there is plenty.

Guilty as charged [Smile]

I'd just like to clarify that when I speak about "Christ standing with the poor and the powerless", I don't mean that this is all He did. It's kind of hard to summarize my view on Christology in one paragraph in a blog post. In fact, I would be hard-pressed to completely express it at all.

quote:
Stejjie: The only thing I have about the interpretation put forward by LeRoc is that, on its own, it kind of seems a bit... futile.

Yes, I see what you mean. Like I tried to explain above, this interpretation doesn't really stand 'on its own' as much as it appeared here. Let me try to begin to formulate what I mean.

In my understanding, part of the reason why God came to this world in Jesus, was to show a way for us to live in relationship with God, with the people and the world around us, and with ourselves. It means putting aside our egoism (which can be a liberation in itself) and trying to do what God asks of us, not because it will give us status (as exemplified in the portrayal of the Pharisees) but because we feel it is the right thing to do.

A big part of trying to live like this has to do with power. If we include our relationship with the poor in this equation, we rapidly see that the reason why they are poor is because power. This is what makes it hard, especially since we should resist the temptation to fight this situation using power ourselves. That is not God's way. We have to find different ways, and that is hard.

And you're absolutely right, this can feel futile and it can be frustrating at times. In my work with poor people, I can feel the trap of frustration and cynicism looming nearby very often. There's so little we can do, and the powers we're up against are so big...

But one of the things I get from the Gospel is that throught Jesus, God felt this sense of futility too. I find this expressed rather well in the 'bitchy' reactions Jesus gave in Luke 9:51–62. God is with us, He knows what it's like. Knowing this can be a liberation in itself.

And of course, the story doesn't end on the Cross. The Resurrection is kind of a hope against all odds to me, a 'fool's hope' as Gandalf expressed it that power won't win in the end. It is this that we can cling to.

Of course, this isn't the only aspect that the Cross and the Resurrection have to me. But I guess this post is already long enough as it is [Biased]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Stejjie, the staggering thing isn't the Resurrection. The power ISN'T in the Resurrection. Jesus was Divine and the Divine CANNOT die.

Of course the staggering thing is the Resurrection! The power is definitely in the resurrection. Jesus was human too.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: But to share in life and death, to be essence in that candle and for the candle to be snuffed out, to be a Person of God constrained to a twitching maggot from a literal egg and have that feeling, thinking creature that You suffuse and express yourself through as one of two perichoretic wills and to have it ripped from you in mind robbing, overwhelming agony ... that's powerful.[/QB]

You presume God doesn't know what it felt like to be human before the incarnation.

You presume wrong.

God knows everything.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Evensong: For liberation theology (which seems to be Le Roc's leanings) there is plenty.
Guilty as charged I'd just like to clarify that when I speak about "Christ standing with the poor and the powerless", I don't mean that this is all He did. It's kind of hard to summarize my view on Christology in one paragraph in a blog post. In fact, I would be hard-pressed to completely express it at all.

quote:
Stejjie: The only thing I have about the interpretation put forward by LeRoc is that, on its own, it kind of seems a bit... futile.
Yes, I see what you mean. Like I tried to explain above, this interpretation doesn't really stand 'on its own' as much as it appeared here. Let me try to begin to formulate what I mean.

In my understanding, part of the reason why God came to this world in Jesus, was to show a way for us to live in relationship with God, with the people and the world around us, and with ourselves. It means putting aside our egoism (which can be a liberation in itself) and trying to do what God asks of us, not because it will give us status (as exemplified in the portrayal of the Pharisees) but because we feel it is the right thing to do.

A big part of trying to live like this has to do with power. If we include our relationship with the poor in this equation, we rapidly see that the reason why they are poor is because power. This is what makes it hard, especially since we should resist the temptation to fight this situation using power ourselves. That is not God's way. We have to find different ways, and that is hard.

And you're absolutely right, this can feel futile and it can be frustrating at times. In my work with poor people, I can feel the trap of frustration and cynicism looming nearby very often. There's so little we can do, and the powers we're up against are so big...

But one of the things I get from the Gospel is that throught Jesus, God felt this sense of futility too. I find this expressed rather well in the 'bitchy' reactions Jesus gave in Luke 9:51–62. God is with us, He knows what it's like. Knowing this can be a liberation in itself.

And of course, the story doesn't end on the Cross. The Resurrection is kind of a hope against all odds to me, a 'fool's hope' as Gandalf expressed it that power won't win in the end. It is this that we can cling to.

Of course, this isn't the only aspect that the Cross and the Resurrection have to me. But I guess this post is already long enough as it is

Quotes file.

[ 14. December 2013, 10:34: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Yes, thanks LeRoc, that's really great and helpful. I wasn't particularly accusing you of that, it was just a flashing red (or at least amber) light that went off in my head. I kind of think of the cross as a kaleidoscope of interpretations, images and ideas, all of which are significant and needed.

Also this:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Stejjie, the staggering thing isn't the Resurrection. The power ISN'T in the Resurrection. Jesus was Divine and the Divine CANNOT die.
Of course the staggering thing is the Resurrection! The power is definitely in the resurrection. Jesus was human too.

I'd agree with Evensong. In many ways, I think the fact that Jesus, though he is divine, does die is staggering in itself - the resurrection then takes it onto a whole other level (not quite sure what I posted that suggested otherwise [Confused]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Oh, for goodness sake! Jesus' identification with the poor and powerless is written all over the Gospels, certainly all over the Semaics. That doesn't mean that those actions did not spring from a conscious decision of His to cooperate with the Father in an eternal mission to redeem the whole of the cosmos, reconciling all things to Himself. You'd think the two were contradictory aims!
I don't have a problem with your statement.

Neither do I.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I don't think he did (either choose to die nor have to die), not what what I think matters.

Of course, a more complex question is how can you kill God anyway, and what does that mean?

The idea that someone can be both man and God is absurd. The idea that a god-man can die is even more absurd. But I like it. I don't have to be able to explain it to like it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stejjie: Yes, thanks LeRoc, that's really great and helpful. I wasn't particularly accusing you of that, it was just a flashing red (or at least amber) light that went off in my head. I kind of think of the cross as a kaleidoscope of interpretations, images and ideas, all of which are significant and needed.

No problem, and I agree with you. Evensong is right in that I lean towards Liberation Theology, but I also feel that people can take it too far at times. When that happens, it can become a bit one-dimensional at times. Liberation Theology is definitely an important lens through which I read the Bible, but it isn't the only lens.

[ 14. December 2013, 12:21: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't think he did (either choose to die nor have to die)

I agree. He was killed, and pretty much knew he would be considering the circumstances - but he'd have been happy not to have been killed imo.

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
... not what what I think matters.

Of course it matters - as much as anyone else's ideas matter.

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

The idea that someone can be both man and God is absurd.

I agree - and I don't think he was (both man and God). I think he was so filled with God that he was divine-human. He showed us the way and the way is to be filled with God's Spirit, totally and always. No-one manages it like Jesus did, but it's possible, as he showed.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Boogie, seems like you need to join me in the vaguely heterodox camp. The dual nature thing is one of my most cherished - whilst at the same time most absurd - beliefs. Even though I've thrown out most of the theology I once believed, that remains. Mostly, I think, because it is such a beautiful idea.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Evensong - you presume that I presume. Of course I don't. God's omnipathy is a given. But this was PERSONAL. There is no greater mystery than the hypostatic union.

The Resurrection is meaningless without The Death. Paul preached the good news of the cross. The Resurrection is not as astounding as God Personally partaking of suffering and death. No Death no Resurrection.

Conservatives will always be able to tilt their heads back and narrow their eyes if we minimize The Death.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
Yes there is.

That Jesus had some comforting words for the poor? Yes. Liberation Theology? No.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
Yes there is.
That Jesus had some comforting words for the poor? Yes. Liberation Theology? No.

slight tangent/

In the meeting I attended earlier this week, one of the speaker's more interesting points was a quote from a Brazilian priest along the following lines:

"If I help the poor, I'm commended for exercising charity. If I ask why they are poor, I'm upbraided for being a communist"

The difference in "lens" (to use LeRoc's term) being individual engagement as opposed to collective (and thus political) engagement.

/slight tangent

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard, what does it mean to kill a deity? How did Jesus' death have more inherent 'nastiness' than any other death?

I think we're so conditioned to think in certain ways that it becomes impossible to think in any other way. We have layers of story and layers of theological meaning upon the events, often interpreted in different ways by different religious figures of the past. Hence we can never talk as if all people subscribe to our point of view on the matter.

In actual stark fact, it is not impossible to have a resurrection without a death. For example: a great leader can be brought low and have a revival of fortunes.

The importance of the death of Jesus to Evangelicals is because it is considered to be redemptive. Not everyone thinks that.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

eutychus, that sounds like a quote from Dom Helder Camara. I don't know how to do the code for weblinks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Looks like liberation theology to me:

Jesus Rejected at Nazareth - and not just there ...

Luke 4:14 Jesus ... stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

[ 14. December 2013, 14:19: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eutychus: In the meeting I attended earlier this week, one of the speaker's more interesting points was a quote from a Brazilian priest along the following lines:

"If I help the poor, I'm commended for exercising charity. If I ask why they are poor, I'm upbraided for being a communist"

This is a (paraphrased) quote from Dom Hélder Câmara.

[ETA: Sorry, cross-posted with pydseybare who said the same thing.)

[ 14. December 2013, 14:26: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Thanks to both of you for finding the source. It's probably another topic!

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Just to say that Camara sounds like liberation theology... because he was a liberation theologian.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Martin, my experience of Conservative (evangelicals) is that they tend to downplay the resurrection in favour of the cross. But ymmv. Paul, though, featured the resurrection so prominently in his preaching that Pagans thought he was speaking of a two new Gods, Jesus and Anastasis.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye JJ, I've accused them of thanatophilia here, being in love with death. I'm now including them as I must and of course fully acknowledge that The Death is as meaningless, empty, futile except as raw humanism without the Resurrection, but we always need to hold our breath for three days and nights.

Not that this applies to you in the slightest, it applies to me first: To water down The Death dilutes The Resurrection.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

It is possible to love death. It is possible to love more than one thing at once. I love my life and the gift of it all the more because in my death I am safe. I often meet people who for all the wrong reasons want to die. Sometimes I meet Christians who love death as it will free them into Christ. For this shall be our song as we go down to the grave, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

Martin sometimes you overthink and underfeel. It is good to understand but it is all vanity if you (I) do not feel/know love. T'is mystery all, the immortal dies.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks Pyx_e. That cuts. Hurts. My eyes are hot. That's just a fact. I'm not being defensive, believe me. I'm completely open to you, in particular. I've been accused of being Aspergersesque and fear I must be. I feel I feel. But my feelings aren't my friends and I do try and make a metanarrative with them. To love them. So please cut DEEPER.

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard, what does it mean to kill a deity? How did Jesus' death have more inherent 'nastiness' than any other death?

Pydseybare. Deity can't be killed. Deity partook of being killed in a distinctly mysterious, perichoetic way that It doesn't in omnipathically partaking of ours and gnats', There is nothing more nasty than death. Anyone's.

"I think we're so conditioned to think in certain ways that it becomes impossible to think in any other way. We have layers of story and layers of theological meaning upon the events, often interpreted in different ways by different religious figures of the past. Hence we can never talk as if all people subscribe to our point of view on the matter.". Me too.

"In actual stark fact, it is not impossible to have a resurrection without a death. For example: a great leader can be brought low and have a revival of fortunes.", that ain't a stark fact in my terms, merely a metaphor, but hey, that's rhetoric for us.

"The importance of the death of Jesus to Evangelicals is because it is considered to be redemptive. Not everyone thinks that." Most Christians have and do. Especially the first ones. If we REJECT that in liberalism, rationalize it away, turn the wine to water, we err. We lose. If we fail to communicate it, to
evangelize with it, we fail to evangelize. We fail to live, to present the good news of the cross.

For all they get wrong - damnationism - Evangelicals, conservatives since Jesus Himself, get this right.

We must add with liberalism, not take away in false maturity.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Well said.

I don't think the death has any rational meaning. why did God need someone - anyone - to die for sin? Answer - he didn't.

Why was Jesus' death redemptive? - answer - no idea.

Wouldn't Jesus have been able to achieve much with 50 more years of life? - answer - who knows

The life, death and resurrection of the Christ cannot be explained. It is to be believed and lived, not explained.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

For what it's worth, Martin and Pyx_e, of all the people on the ship,you must surely be the two most unlikely to underfeel.

[code]

[ 15. December 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Well said yourself pydseybare.

Death is perfectly rational in a material creation. Essential. Fundamental. Intrinsic. Consciousness isn't, it's evolution going too far.

Absolutely, there is no way God requires death to forgive. In my narrative, He's redemptive. WE needed the death, THE Death, obviously.

He couldn't possibly have achieved more by just dying of old age or martyrdom at 80-odd. Less. Infinitely less. The shock to our system was historically perfect: 'What, then, are we to do?'.

The life, death and resurrection of Christ is a story the that inspires story, including this. It should certainly inspire much more.

JJ - aye, that's my problem!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
The life, death and resurrection of the Christ cannot be explained. It is to be believed and lived, not explained.

I'll give that an Amen to that.

St Paul attempts to explain it because , after himself sucumbing to a profound spiritual experience , he is assigned to task of converting a strange tale surrounding the execution of an itinerant preacher into a workable theology .

I'm not necessarily refuting said theology, but personally I prefer to let it wash over somewhat rather than attempting to scrutinize each word of it .

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I've just done a quick read of this thread and I think the thing missing is one of Jesus' own major images of the matter - the idea that we owe a debt to God.
Of course God can forgive anyone he likes, anywhen he likes; but as you can see from human situations, any serious forgiveness is costly to the forgiver. Jesus' death is God showing us, inside human life, both his preparedness to forgive and the costliness of it. This challenges us to the repentance, faith, and spiritual rebirth we need to be reconciled to the God who forgives us at such cost.
There are lots of different images of atonement in the Bible; we need to use our brains to take the appropriate aspect of each image and not push it too far. The idea of penal substitution has quite a bit to teach, but if we treat it as the main or only explanation we end up unbalanced.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

What does death and life have in common? How are they the same? -- this seems to me to be a key question, and I would assert that they are same. Our tendency to be binary - either/or - creates the problem in our understanding.

This leads me to also assert that the question "why did Jesus have to choose to die?" is the wrong one. For which the only answer is "he didn't have to choose anything". And it only matters now because he did. A better question is "why did they (the people) kill Jesus?" And "would we kill him again?". The answers to these questions are "we always kill Jesus, and yes, we will continue to kill him". The moment in time when he was killed was structured that way, and our current killing moments are also structured this way. And we try dreadfully hard not to take responsibility for what we do, even if God is merciful to us even then.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

One man's question is another man's floor eh?

It's a miracle he lasted so long.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've just done a quick read of this thread and I think the thing missing is one of Jesus' own major images of the matter - the idea that we owe a debt to God.

Jesus believes we owe a debt to God? Where do you get that idea from?

Personally I don't see how we owe a debt to God.

God made us with free will. If we choose to go our own way can hardly be blamed for it.

The only "debt" we owe as I see it is to give thanks for our very existence. God didn't have to create us at all after all.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker
But God can choose to punish the innocent (and Jesus was innocent) and then let the guilty go without punishing them. That is justice? I don't think I'd trust a person who did that. Why should I trust a god?

Can you explain how punishing the innocent is more just than punishing no one?

But even though Jesus was innocent, God did not establish the principle of "the innocent taking the punishment of the guilty", as if this can be applied as a general rule. The cross was a specific event, and Jesus was not just a representative innocent man, but God incarnate.

You seem to be distilling some kind of general modus operandi from this unique event, and I think that that is quite dangerous, actually. I say this, because many innocent people can imagine that it is God's will for them to suffer no end of injustice, with the belief that they are "carrying their cross" and being versions of Christ. Of course, there is suffering in the Christian life, and we are commanded to "take up our cross", but we shouldn't assume that we have to live as doormats for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Essentially it was God Himself taking the legal consequences for human evil. Only He could actually bear those consequences. Now, of course, the question arises as to why God didn't "just forgive" human sin as an act of authority. Why is there a need for the legal consequences of evil to be worked out? I am sure there are many deep reasons for this, but I would like to suggest that God cannot "just forgive" without the consequences of sin being dealt with in some way. God's moral law is an expression of His character. Unlike human ideas of absolute authority, in which the despot can just "make it up as he goes along", God respects His own law and His own character. He cannot contradict Himself by an act of authority. He cannot subvert His own moral character.

Now some Christians think that He can "just forgive". But, if that is the case, He can also "just not forgive" by an act of authority. If God is viewed as pure authority, and His moral character is whatever His authority says it is at any give time, then He is a being who is essentially unstable. Anyone who feels secure and comfortable in life can nonchalantly say that they can trust such a being, but I confess that I cannot. A God who can simply do anything without any reference to logic and the moral law, is a God who provides no basis for trust. The necessity of the cross is God's unequivocal statement to man that He is prepared to pay the ultimate price to uphold His moral law. It is God saying: "I am morally consistent, because if I were not, I would have just forgiven human sin without all this pain and suffering. I would have acted purely by my own authority, but I do not act like this. I respect the moral process and the demands of my own righteous law. Therefore evil has to be punished, but since I wish to forgive you, then I have taken the punishment on myself."

Now that is a God I can truly trust.

If that is "Bronze age" thinking, as some have said, then so be it. I'll have that any day over the confusion, dysfunction and neurosis of post-modern ambiguity.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Right, so God says that a punishment is necessary to pay off a debt to himself, determines that the person liable for the debt is unable to pay, so instead punishes.. himself.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Yep

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

That doesn't make any sense.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Maybe not to you.

But perhaps you would like to address properly the points from my last but one post, instead of just picking one thing out of context, and putting your own straw man construction on it? Then we might possibly be able to have a sensible discussion about it.

Otherwise, I have better things to do...

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Well I'll let others decide if I've created a straw man. I summarised your argument, which you agreed to.

There are so many things to disagree with the assertions you make in your last-but-one reply that one doesn't really know where to start.

This paragraph I find particularly problematic (and particularly mocking of anyone who doesn't automatically agree)

quote:
Now some Christians think that He can "just forgive". But, if that is the case, He can also "just not forgive" by an act of authority. If God is viewed as pure authority, and His moral character is whatever His authority says it is at any give time, then He is a being who is essentially unstable. Anyone who feels secure and comfortable in life can nonchalantly say that they can trust such a being, but I confess that I cannot. A God who can simply do anything without any reference to logic and the moral law, is a God who provides no basis for trust. The necessity of the cross is God's unequivocal statement to man that He is prepared to pay the ultimate price to uphold His moral law. It is God saying: "I am morally consistent, because if I were not, I would have just forgiven human sin without all this pain and suffering. I would have acted purely by my own authority, but I do not act like this. I respect the moral process and the demands of my own righteous law. Therefore evil has to be punished, but since I wish to forgive you, then I have taken the punishment on myself."

There is nothing that makes the formula you've assented to above more morally consistent than the God who could punish, but doesn't. In fact, the God who could-but-doesn't is far more consistent with the picture from the Old Testament than the God who is so caught up with some kind of legal argument that he has to punish someone - even if that turns out to be himself.

Indeed, the latter God should not be believed because he appears to be mentally ill and prepared to self-harm rather than keep to any recognisable understanding of justice.

Evil does not have to be punished. That's not biblically true (see almost every biblical character). God is not allergic to sin (see almost every biblical character), repentance and forgiveness is not necessary before God is prepared to work with people (see almost every biblical character).

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

To my mind EE’s argument centres on the premise that God MUST have a punishment to forgive and doesn’t want to punish us humans, so punishes himself.

Surely logic dictates that if God MUST do something, if He is compelled by statute do something, then there must be a force greater than God who has laid down that rule.

If God has come up with that rule, He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed. If some authority above God has laid down that rule for God to follow then there must be a greater authority than God, who has decided a punishment must be extracted from somewhere.

I don’t believe either of those are true because I don’t accept EE’s premise that God MUST have a punishment.

Legal arguments get into all sorts of difficulties about what authority lays down the laws, and who must follow them. The authority has a greater power than those who must follow the laws.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
Evil does not have to be punished. That's not biblically true (see almost every biblical character).

Well, it's interesting that you support your assertion with reference to the Bible - a book of which you have a very low view, if one of your recent contributions on another thread is to be believed!

But what you say is simply not the case. The requirement to make atonement for sin is a theme that runs through almost the entire Old Testament, and, of course, it is fulfilled in the one true and ultimate atonement of the cross of Christ. In Hebrews 9:22 we read: "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." Look it up.

All forgiveness of "biblical characters" was through the atoning work of Christ, who was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), meaning that His atoning work reaches back in time to cover the sins of all those who lived and died before the historical event of the crucifixion.

As for evil not having to be punished... well, what do you understand by the functioning of the moral law? What you are really saying is that God - by an act of authority - can simply abolish His own moral law, which is a reflection of His eternal character. Therefore He would also be changing His own moral character.

Which brings me to...

quote:
Originally posted by deano
Surely logic dictates that if God MUST do something, if He is compelled by statute do something, then there must be a force greater than God who has laid down that rule.

If God has come up with that rule, He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed. If some authority above God has laid down that rule for God to follow then there must be a greater authority than God, who has decided a punishment must be extracted from somewhere.

This is a rather daft argument, because it presupposes that God has no personal convictions of His own, and therefore is not 'bound' by anything from within Himself. It's rather like a petulant child who really wants to misbehave, and wants to test the moral boundaries, but can only be morally consistent if he is kept in check by a higher authority, such as a parent. This is clearly a projection onto God of a distorted view of both morality and authority.

God, by His own will, is morally consistent. Therefore there is no need to introduce a higher authority to force God to be consistent - or to be what He actually IS!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Nicely said pydesbare and deano.

EE. For someone that prizes logic, yours has holes so big God could create another universe in them.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is God saying: "I am morally consistent, because if I were not, I would have just forgiven human sin without all this pain and suffering. I would have acted purely by my own authority, but I do not act like this. I respect the moral process and the demands of my own righteous law. Therefore evil has to be punished, but since I wish to forgive you, then I have taken the punishment on myself."

Punishment borne by someone other than the person committing the iniquity is not part of Gods moral process and righteous law at all.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If that is "Bronze age" thinking, as some have said, then so be it. I'll have that any day over the confusion, dysfunction and neurosis of post-modern ambiguity.

It's more Anselm of Canterbury 11th-12th century thinking.

[x-posted]

[ 19. December 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Well y'know. I don't accept that the bible is authoritative in the same kind of sense as my Evangelical relatives, but I kinda expect people who make an argument based on the bible narrative to know what it says.

EtymologicalEvangelical, your argument appears to be that things are the way you say they are - because they are. And that God is the way he is, because he is.

Again, I have little problem with believing religion is absurd, so if you'd argued it was not to be understood but believed, I'd have less of a problem. As it stands, you don't seem to accept that the logical argument you are proposing is a) not logical and b) not even supported by the source material you say you are basing it upon.

So let me say it for you: EE's God is Absurd.

Fine. I now have better things to be doing as well.

[ 19. December 2013, 12:26: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Punishment borne by someone other than the person committing the iniquity is not part of Gods moral process and righteous law at all.

Well, I find it rather laughable that you are claiming that I am not being logical, when in fact I am the one upholding the consistency of the moral law, whereas you and your cronies are claiming that God is effectively a dictator who can just "do what he likes" ('cos he's the big chief) without any reference to his own moral character. And apparently such a dictator can be trusted, because he is apparently benign. But a benign dictator can be otherwise, as anyone with even a minimal grasp of logic can work out.

Yes, it is scandalous that the innocent God should suffer because of our sin. The alternative is that we all go to hell, or God decided not to create any of us in the first place for fear that we would fall.

What you are proposing is the one option which is a travesty of logic.

As for conforming to the thinking of the past: I couldn't care less. What I am interested in is truth, not being seen to go along with the latest fad.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Evensong, I don't know much about you, but it appears I am your crony.

I shall wear that as a badge.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
As it stands, you don't seem to accept that the logical argument you are proposing is a) not logical and b) not even supported by the source material you say you are basing it upon.

Well, firstly I have explained my logic, and secondly you have manifestly failed to refute my argument from the Bible. So just telling me that my argument is not logical or biblical without any supporting argument or evidence is rather pathetic, if you ask me.

Run along now...

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Run along now? What are you - 12 years old?

I'm sorry, I obviously mistook this board for serious theological debate rather than whatever-it-is that you think you are doing.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Actually, I think EE's got a point. deano said this:

quote:
If God has come up with that rule [that God must have a punishment in order to forgive], He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed.

It makes God rather inconsistent at best. Why would God make the rule in the first place if he's later going to dismiss it as unnecessary? Why would God decide it's unnecessary - what had happened that had changed the nature of sin that it no longer needed to be punished (assuming, for the sake of argument, that "punished" is the right terminology here)? deano doesn't spell it out: again, assuming for the sake of argument that God had at one point decided that sin required punishment, from which forgiveness could then flow, what would change to make God disregard that rule? Is God really in the business of making rules and then deciding, for reasons unspecified, that he's simply going to disregard them - if anyone else did that, we'd rightly be wary of them.

That said, I'm not 100% convinced the formulation "sin needs punishing which leads to forgiveness" is correct, or at least that it's the whole story. I am convinced that sin needs dealing with (to use a horrible vague term): it can't just be swept under the carpet. Sin, ISTM, is that which most endangers humanity, that cuts us of from God and each other, that hurts and ultimately destroys us. It is an offence to God that his world is blighted by it and that the pinnacle of his creation, humanity, is so caught up in it. I don't think it'll do to say that this doesn't need "naming and shaming", that God's love means he can just turn a blind eye to it. And I think we're so caught up in it - all of us, the sins we commit and the sins others commit against us - that we can't be free from it on our own.

I think what God's love does say is that he can't stand for us to be caught up in sin, for it to corrode us and put us on a path to destruction. So I think what something of what happened on the cross (and I'm drawing a bit on NT Wright here, see this article for an example) is God does expose and nullify the reality and the consequences of sin, but that he does that in Jesus - in God's own self. Why? So that we humans can be truly free from sin and its consequences. Not just in a "so we don't have to face the punishment we deserve" sense: I mean consequences in a much broader sense, in terms of the destructive effects it can have on our lives as much as anything. I also think it means we can, if we are in Christ, live towards that day when we and the world are free from sin completely.

So I don't think simply saying "sin leads to punishment which leads to forgiveness" is sufficient. Neither is simply "If God's made this rule then he can disregard it": that doesn't make God more faithful and loving, but less. I think it's more about sin being exposed for what it is, the consequences of sin being acted out fully (in Jesus, in God, the only one who could fully bear those consequences and then overcome them) and then people being set free from it and reconciled to God and each other.

I think...

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
I'm sorry, I obviously mistook this board for serious theological debate...

Yeah, so did I.

I always thought 'debate' involved providing supporting arguments and evidence for one's statements. So perhaps you may like to provide same.

Otherwise, it is indeed nothing more than a playground...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Punishment borne by someone other than the person committing the iniquity is not part of Gods moral process and righteous law at all.
Well, I find it rather laughable that you are claiming that I am not being logical, when in fact I am the one upholding the consistency of the moral law

No you're not. Punishing the innocent is not God's moral law. Never has been.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
whereas you and your cronies are claiming that God is effectively a dictator who can just "do what he likes" ('cos he's the big chief) without any reference to his own moral character. And apparently such a dictator can be trusted, because he is apparently benign.

My God is not a random dictator without any reference to her moral character. You don't even know what my atonement theology is.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

As for conforming to the thinking of the past: I couldn't care less. What I am interested in is truth, not being seen to go along with the latest fad.

Truth?

The truth is there are a number of different biblically defensible atonement models.

Yours is one of the weakest.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Those posting on this thread might do well to make sure they are contributing more light than heat.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Actually, I think EE's got a point. deano said this:

quote:
If God has come up with that rule [that God must have a punishment in order to forgive], He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed.
It makes God rather inconsistent at best. Why would God make the rule in the first place if he's later going to dismiss it as unnecessary? Why would God decide it's unnecessary - what had happened that had changed the nature of sin that it no longer needed to be punished (assuming, for the sake of argument, that "punished" is the right terminology here)? deano doesn't spell it out: again, assuming for the sake of argument that God had at one point decided that sin required punishment, from which forgiveness could then flow, what would change to make God disregard that rule? Is God really in the business of making rules and then deciding, for reasons unspecified, that he's simply going to disregard them - if anyone else did that, we'd rightly be wary of them.

Yes, I completely agree. We would be wary of such a god, because of their inconsistency. When I wrote my post I was re-wording what I felt is EE’s premise, certainly not one I share.

I personally don’t believe that God ever made such a rule (that our original sin required a punishment to be forgiven).

In my opinion God in pure love and would never have made such a rule. Fallible man, passing on stories and writing them down over the course of a number of centuries, finishing in about 300 AD may well have misunderstood or misinterpreted God’s actions across the millennia, and believe God to have created such a rule, but I can’t see how it can logically exist.

Punishment for wrongdoing is a part of the HUMAN condition and not one that ought to be ascribed to God, who has no need of such a process.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Evensong, I don't know much about you, but it appears I am your crony.

I shall wear that as a badge.

Good man.

But a wee word of warning - you might get burnt if you hang about my camp. [Biased]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Run along now? What are you - 12 years old?

That quote is more suitable for Hell. But just to clarify I am - according to EE anyway - the 12 year old around here! [Two face]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

OK, let us think about this idea of a God who is somehow contractually obliged to punish those who sin.

Let's have a think about which bible stories we know that have something to say about that.

First one that comes to my mind is Ninevah in Jonah. If God is somehow contractually obliged to punish, then how can he show mercy to the inhabitants of the city - and all the animals?

How, actually, can you how mercy if you are obliged to follow a moral law? Surely you can only do one or the other.

Even if we accept a narrative that says sacrifice is always necessary for forgiveness - let us consider all the times when God met with men and acted before they did any sacrificing. That'll be - Noah, Abraham, David... all did the sacrificing later.

And even if we accept a narrative that God has chosen to save a particular group of people for his own purposes (the Jews, just to make sure we're all on the same page here) it doesn't follow that non-Jews could ever be saved with any kind of sacrifice.

It doesn't work.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

If you require a punishment in order to forgive, you ain't forgiving. That's what forgiveness is - forgoing punishment, forgoing redress.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

This, I think, is a half truth. There are times when I have assured my children that they are forgiven while still punishing them. For example, when I caught one of my sons hurting his brother, I told him how disappointed and angry I was that he would choose to deliberately hurt his brother, who - like him - is one of my sons whom I love. I then assured him of my forgiveness and love for him, made sure - as best I could - that he and his brother were sincerely reconciled, and then sent him to sit in his room away from the family for 15 minutes as a punishment.

Now, using personal anecdotes like this is always risky because it might result in people feeling that I'm a monstrous parent who is going to mess up my kids in all kinds of horrible ways. I hope that's not the case here. But my point is this: punishment and forgiveness aren't mutually exclusive.

[ 19. December 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's for us, it's our childish, adolescent, Bronze Age right up until now sense of 'justice'.

When God resurrects the Jews of Treblinka and the Germans and Balts and Ukrainians who murdered them there, what would be just after that?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But my point is this: punishment and forgiveness aren't mutually exclusive.

That's true, but as a good parent, I suspect you are trying to teach them something useful by this punishment. If you'd decided to thrash them within an inch of their lives for this, we might not agree it was appropriate.

Similarly, if you'd decided to punish someone else other than your son for something he'd done, that wouldn't usually be considered just.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
OK, let us think about this idea of a God who is somehow contractually obliged to punish those who sin.

Let's have a think about which bible stories we know that have something to say about that.

First one that comes to my mind is Ninevah in Jonah. If God is somehow contractually obliged to punish, then how can he show mercy to the inhabitants of the city - and all the animals?

How, actually, can you how mercy if you are obliged to follow a moral law? Surely you can only do one or the other.

Even if we accept a narrative that says sacrifice is always necessary for forgiveness - let us consider all the times when God met with men and acted before they did any sacrificing. That'll be - Noah, Abraham, David... all did the sacrificing later.

And even if we accept a narrative that God has chosen to save a particular group of people for his own purposes (the Jews, just to make sure we're all on the same page here) it doesn't follow that non-Jews could ever be saved with any kind of sacrifice.

It doesn't work.

Hmmm...

Well, there is a reason why God was able to forgive the people of Nineveh and others in Old Testament times, while upholding the integrity of His moral law. It has something to do, firstly, with the basic theme of this thread, and secondly, I explained this in relation to Old Testament times in one of my earlier posts today.

I'll give you time to work it out, and then I'll be back...

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
...if you'd decided to punish someone else other than your son for something he'd done, that wouldn't usually be considered just.

Exactly.

And that is why God does not punish someone else for another person's sins.

He punishes Himself.

Which is rather different, dontcha think?

(Please ignore my comment, if you don't accept the divinity of Christ).

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

No I don't.

(And yes I do).

[ 19. December 2013, 16:25: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Heh. The central conundrum here to me is reconciling forgiveness - especially in the (wholly biblical) sense of cancelling a debt - with still extracting the cost of the debt.

Actually, I think the debt analogy is quite useful. Suppose you owe me £100. You can't pay. I forgive the debt. It costs me. It costs me the £100 I'd otherwise have extracted from you. I don't have to go through any convoluted explanations of why punishment is still forgiveness, or why I can't just unilaterally forgive - I have forgiven, no-one has been punished, but it's still cost me £100.

That cost of £100 I see externalised in the cross; even if I don't know exactly how. It's imperfect, but it seems better to me than the standard evangelical explanation.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
No I don't.

Ah, I get it!

Now one of these people, who go on about God being able to do whatever He likes, and He can "just forgive" sin by an act of authority, is now taking it upon himself to tell God that He is not allowed to punish Himself to atone for the sins of mankind!

Well I never...

And to think that I was accused of not being logical!

[brick wall]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
...if you'd decided to punish someone else other than your son for something he'd done, that wouldn't usually be considered just.
Exactly.

And that is why God does not punish someone else for another person's sins.

He punishes Himself.

Which is rather different, dontcha think?

(Please ignore my comment, if you don't accept the divinity of Christ).

I think it would be more accurate to say that we should ignore your comment if we don't accept what you think EE.

Well I pretty much disagree with everything you say because you seem to be making it up as you go along, but I also accept the divinity of Christ. That must annoy you somewhat.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Heh. The central conundrum here to me is reconciling forgiveness - especially in the (wholly biblical) sense of cancelling a debt - with still extracting the cost of the debt.

Actually, I think the debt analogy is quite useful. Suppose you owe me £100. You can't pay. I forgive the debt. It costs me. It costs me the £100 I'd otherwise have extracted from you. I don't have to go through any convoluted explanations of why punishment is still forgiveness, or why I can't just unilaterally forgive - I have forgiven, no-one has been punished, but it's still cost me £100.

That cost of £100 I see externalised in the cross; even if I don't know exactly how. It's imperfect, but it seems better to me than the standard evangelical explanation.

Following EE's logic though, forgiving isn't enough. God must be like a loan shark...

If you don't pay up, not only do you have to forgive the debt, but you MUST beat yourself up as well, otherwise the tardy debtor hasn't been punished, so the forgiveness isn't real.

[ 19. December 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ah, I get it!

Now one of these people, who go on about God being able to do whatever He likes, and He can "just forgive" sin by an act of authority, is now taking it upon himself to tell God that He is not allowed to punish Himself to atone for the sins of mankind!

Well I never...

And to think that I was accused of not being logical!

If you are God, punishing yourself for the sins of others is a pointless act. And is no more logical than suggesting that someone (anyone) needs to be punished to satisfy God's wrath.

Again, it isn't about telling God what he is allowed to do or not do, it is about thinking about whether the things we are saying - that we are claiming are obvious, logical and the only possible explanation - are any of those things.

And, of course, the only person around here telling God what he must do is you - when you claimed that God has a judicial legal duty to punish someone for the sins of humanity.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano
...you seem to be making it up as you go along...

I must admit that that is one of the more colourful (and delightfully bullshitty) ways of describing the act of taking seriously what the Bible says!

Funny, but I thought it was the "pick and choose" post-modern liberals who were "making it up as they go along". Your mate pydseybare is an example, as he has decided to give poor old Paul the boot. Why? Oh, he obviously just felt like it...

By the way... if I'm just making it up as I go along, then perhaps you would be so good as to explain the correct biblical interpretation of the atonement? Why don't you start with the system of sacrifices, and explain to us all what all that was about. Take your time now... I know this won't be easy for you. (I'd just love to see your interpretation of Hebrews. Now that would be a reet laff!!)

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a debating point or a personal attack?

There are other ways to understand blood sacrifice than insisting that there is a deity who needs to be satisfied with the death of an animal.

If you start from the position that God sees all, then the death of one animal in this circumstance isn't much different to the death in another circumstance.

So if we then ask what the point of the animal sacrifice was, then it is easier to start by answering in the negative - ie not to placate God.

If we then believe that it does have meaning, then one explanation is that the sacrifice is for man rather than for God. That men needed to have a marker to understand the importance of forgiveness, not because God could be satisfied with blood, but because freely offered grace quickly becomes freely taken grace, which in short time becomes a justification to do anything you like - because you know that it is in God's nature to forgive.

Then one might say that the purpose of the sacrifice was to make a special marker by removing something expensive and of worth from the person making the act of repentance.

So the sacrifice becomes something for people rather than for God.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Your mate pydseybare is an example, as he has decided to give poor old Paul the boot. Why? Oh, he obviously just felt like it...

hosting/

EtymologicalEvangelical, importing disputes that have already attracted hostly attention on another thread to a new thread is not a "reet laff". It's jerkish and you've been around more than long enough to know. If you want to take comments personally, take it to Hell.

/hosting

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

pydseybare -

I've got to pull the plug on my contributions for today (as I start work at 7.00 am in the morning for my sins!), but I will just say that I think perhaps we could agree that sin has consequences (and that might be a better word to use than 'punishment'), and that these 'consequences' - this "cause and effect" or "sowing and reaping", to use the biblical expression - need to be dealt with in some way or other.

I would like to think that we could agree that the work of Christ on the cross had 'something' to do with this, however we express it and understand it.

Bye for now...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yeah, so how will the consequences to the Treblinka Jews be dealt with other than in resurrection with full restitution?

And how will their slaughterers, apart from being punished randomly (it could have been you or me after all) by being that, and living blithely insane lives typified by having nice family photographs taken outside work, be punished, in the Resurrection? Why?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah? It's as if he's suggesting that the cross rather than effecting an atonement causes a need for atonement.

quote:
Acts 2: 36. Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah?

Nope. Good Lucan theology. [Smile]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

They, we, need metanoia, change of mind because we do. The Consciousness gave us a dose of reality by making us murder Him - not that it took much.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah? It's as if he's suggesting that the cross rather than effecting an atonement causes a need for atonement.

quote:
Acts 2: 36. Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

The Baptist theologian Paul S. Fiddes, while not referring specifically to this passage, does argue that this is the prime action of the cross. On the cross, Jesus takes on himself the fullness of humanity's evil and injustice so that we, guided by the Spirit, will see this, realise where we are complicit in these things (or affected by them) and turn to follow Christ's ways instead. So brings up the need for atonement and also, in way, effects it by bringing us to the place where we can be forgiven and freed from sin (or begin to be freed from sin).

That's quite a loose summary entirely from memory, but he does argue something like what you've argued here, Kwesi.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... if I'm just making it up as I go along, then perhaps you would be so good as to explain the correct biblical interpretation of the atonement? Why don't you start with the system of sacrifices, and explain to us all what all that was about. Take your time now... I know this won't be easy for you. (I'd just love to see your interpretation of Hebrews. Now that would be a reet laff!!)

There is no "correct" biblical interpretation EE. There is only interpretation, and each one is as good as another. It depends upon the translation you use, the way your individual character has been built up and the amount of advice you take from other people and who those people are.

Anyone who claims to have a "correct" interpretation is misguided. It says more about them than it says about anyone else. They need to question how they have succumed to such a view and whether it is healthy for them.

I wont even attempt to work through Hebrews. I leave that kind of thing to others as I really wouldn't know how to perform an exegesis of that nature.

All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano
There is no "correct" biblical interpretation EE. There is only interpretation, and each one is as good as another. It depends upon the translation you use, the way your individual character has been built up and the amount of advice you take from other people and who those people are.

So we're all "making it up" then? Glad you cleared that one up.

You say that each interpretation is "as good as another".

And yet...

quote:
All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.

So all interpretations are equal, but some interpretations are more equal than others.

I award you the George Orwell Prize for Big Brother logic.

Well done that man!

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by deano
There is no "correct" biblical interpretation EE. There is only interpretation, and each one is as good as another. It depends upon the translation you use, the way your individual character has been built up and the amount of advice you take from other people and who those people are.
So we're all "making it up" then? Glad you cleared that one up.

You say that each interpretation is "as good as another".

And yet...

quote:
All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.
So all interpretations are equal, but some interpretations are more equal than others.

I award you the George Orwell Prize for Big Brother logic.

Well done that man!

Thanks, I'll wear it as a badge of honour.

Yes, some interpretations appeal to me more than others. Your interpretation is less appealing to me, so I discard it to the waste bin with no more thought than if I were to discard any other piece of rubbish.

There must be some fundamental flaw in my character that wants my God to be pure love and without a violent streak that demand a death before help is given.

Or maybe the flaw lies in the character of those who do want a god with a violent streak.

Well, I guess I'll take a good look at my own character to see if I can spot where in my past I needed to avoid a violent god. I wonder if others will undertake a similar search.

I wonder if some people have such awful lives that they really need to believe in a god who will send them to heaven after death, but others will be separated and given an awful life in hell so they can see "what it feels like". The demand for death sacrifice seems to be an extension of that as it allows for a god who will allow such a hell.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

EE, are you labouring under the misconception that there is only one atonement theory which has been justified by reference to the Bible? Because that's just flat out untrue; there are several different (and conflicting, to some extent) theories which all have their backers, and which all derive at least some foundation from the Bible.

Apologies if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs but try these articles for an introduction.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Well then, deano, perhaps you would like to explain why God sent Jesus into the world to die a violent death. He was no passive victim, as you well know if you have such a great knowledge of the Scriptures. There was a purpose to it all, hence the words "it is finished". What was all that about?

As for insinuating that people who interpret the Bible in the way I apparently am, are violent, well, frankly, that is beneath contempt. I can't be bothered to mess about with a hell call, so I will treat that comment with the disdain it deserves by ignoring it henceforth...

[ 20. December 2013, 09:42: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

There must be some fundamental flaw in my character that wants my God to be pure love and without a violent streak that demand a death before help is given.

Not at all. You are merely going with the majority view of the biblical witness.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Evensong

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

Re the cross: has it ever struck you as odd that Peter's sermon at Pentecost suggests that his hearers need to repent because they are responsible for the death of the Messiah?

Evensong: Nope. Good Lucan theology.

OK, Evensong, I entirely agree with your point. You do not, however, help me with the second part of my question, regarding atonement.

What I'm wrestling with is the relationship of the cross to atonement. As I (mis?)understand it, atonement was made possible through the cross i.e. it is the solution to existing or past estrangement. Peter, however, seems to be suggesting something different, namely, that the cross rather than being a solution is the major reason for the rupture between humanity (especially the Jews and proselytes) and God because it killed the Messiah. The cross, in other words, does not effect atonement but causes or focuses on the need for atonement. So is the argument that the atoning feature of the cross is that its efficacy is not the crucifixion itself but a later recognition by humanity of its responsibility for such an appalling act? Hence the atonement offered by Peter to those who answered to call to “Repent and be baptised."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
EE, are you labouring under the misconception that there is only one atonement theory which has been justified by reference to the Bible?

I am glad that you put that in the form of a question, because the answer is:

Emphatically NO!

I have never said or even insinuated such a thing.

Please don't dump that false dichotomy on me. Thanks.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well then, deano, perhaps you would like to explain why God sent Jesus into the world to die a violent death

God didn't send Jesus into the world to die a violent death.

But he knew it would happen. Happened to all the prophets after all and Jesus was more than a prophet so his death was inevitable.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
EE, are you labouring under the misconception that there is only one atonement theory which has been justified by reference to the Bible?
I am glad that you put that in the form of a question, because the answer is:

Emphatically NO!

I have never said or even insinuated such a thing.

Please don't dump that false dichotomy on me. Thanks.

Sure thing. Perhaps, then, you could take more care to avoid implying that those who disagree with you on the atonement are disregarding what the Bible says. Deal?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
OK, Evensong, I entirely agree with your point. You do not, however, help me with the second part of my question, regarding atonement.

What I'm wrestling with is the relationship of the cross to atonement. As I (mis?)understand it, atonement was made possible through the cross i.e. it is the solution to existing or past estrangement. Peter, however, seems to be suggesting something different, namely, that the cross rather than being a solution is the major reason for the rupture between humanity (especially the Jews and proselytes) and God because it killed the Messiah. The cross, in other words, does not effect atonement but causes or focuses on the need for atonement. So is the argument that the atoning feature of the cross is that its efficacy is not the crucifixion itself but a later recognition by humanity of its responsibility for such an appalling act? Hence the atonement offered by Peter to those who answered to call to “Repent and be baptised."

I think there are actually a range of different Christianities expressed in the New Testament, hence there are quite different theologies about the person of Jesus Christ, the meaning of his death and other points of theology. Hence attempting to get a joined-up theology about this is going to be an impossible task.

The writer of the passage you're talking about here has a message which is about the responsibility of the contemporary Jews for the death of Christ. Hence the piece is written in that way.

I don't think the pieces all tie neatly together. The idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus is obviously a very problematic thought which has led to persecution of Jews throughout the ages.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for insinuating that people who interpret the Bible in the way I apparently am, are violent, well, frankly, that is beneath contempt. I can't be bothered to mess about with a hell call, so I will treat that comment with the disdain it deserves by ignoring it henceforth...

ADMINLY DISINTEGRATION RAY ARMED

EE, you have already been warned on this very thread about taking comments personally and responding in kind. Now you're doing it again. Not a good idea.

If you can't be bothered making a Hell Call then ignoring a comment is the right thing to do. Posting about how beneath contempt it is and pointing out how much you'll be ignoring it in future isn't ignoring it.

If you feel the need to get personal you have exactly two choices - do it in Hell, or don't do it at all. Despite what you apparently thought when composing that post, there is no middle way where you get to do it in Purg, but not really because you're going to ignore it just as soon as you've finished posting about how much disdain you will be feeling while doing so.

You would be wise to avoid attracting any more Hostly attention any time soon. The Admins are watching.

Marvin
Admin

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well then, deano, perhaps you would like to explain why God sent Jesus into the world to die a violent death.

My pleasure.

God saw we were creatures who despite evolving on a planet that was dangerous, and thus with human characters that were dominated by evil deeds towards each other, we were still capable of love.

We had love in us. Even the basest of us, the lowliest or the most evil and violent of us were capable of showing love. Not of “showing love”, but of having the capacity for doing so.

That meant that God, who is pure love could have a relationship with us. We both spoke the same language, Him perfectly, us poorly. But we could make ourselves understood to Him, even if we couldn’t always understand Him.

We were also trapped in death. We died and because dust or food for the worms. Our love was lost and God didn’t like that one bit. To lose love was/is anathema to him. So he sent His Son to us to break death. To destroy death.

What Christ did was look at us and say to Himself “These humans are awful to each other and to me and my Father. But I want to send them to Heaven because they can love and when we get them there they will be perfect. Therefore I must look beyond their flaws in order to get them into heaven. I must forgive them and lay down my own life in order to break death’s hold over them.”

He forgave us our dreadful natures in order to defeat death. He laid down his own life IN SPITE of our evil ways. The Resurrection broke death and threw open wide the gates of heaven.

It’s the Resurrection that matters. Nothing else. Everything else is mere commentary. The Resurrection destroyed death and meant that after dying we leave our sinful evil natures behind to rot in the ground or be burnt whilst our love – that capacity we have – ensures our souls are ushered into heaven, for an eternity in union with God’s complete love.

Yes it’s a but fluffy bunny, which is ironic coming from me I suppose, but life is just awful, so to have an afterlife that is awful would just be pointless. The whole point is that life after death is the complete counterpoint to life here on Earth. Life on Earth is awful (yes even for those who have good lives) compared to the perfection that awaits us in heaven.

To deny someone that access to heaven would be an evil act in itself. We are sinful creatures, driven this way by our evolution, which God created. He created the universe and all of the processes within it, from quantum mechanics to evolution, so He bears some responsibility for how we are. Thus to deny someone access to heaven for eternity would be such a heinous act I don’t believe it to be possible for God to do. Not because He is incapable, but because He wouldn’t despise us enough to do so.

Can I prove any of this with Biblical references? Possibly. I’m not going to though because frankly I can’t be bothered. If I were to do so it would be to try to convince you using the only basis of proof you ascribe to – the Bible – and I don’t share that same basis of proof.

I think that is why you are getting frustrated EE, because you have biblical proof you are right, but I (and others) simply won’t accept the Bible quotations as admissible proof. I can see that must be frustrating for you. I’m not sympathetic by the way, you made your bed and you can lie on it, but I understand where it’s coming from. I just refuse to accept the Bible as the be all and end all of faith.

I guess that frustration is why there are so many splits amongst protestant denominations, accusing those who refuse to interpret the bible in the same way as not being true Christians. But they are wrong. Everyone is a Christian; it’s just that not everyone knows it yet. That revelation will only come after death when we all walk through the gates of heaven.

Proof by Biblical quotation is also pointless because even if I did post some proof-texting you would only refute it with other biblical quotations, then someone else would post another quotation to rebut your argument, and so on and so forth.

I treat the Bible as a light. It illuminates the path I’m on, but when I come to a fork, I have to decide myself and choose. The Bible then illuminates my new direction. It isn’t a sat-nav that makes the choice for me!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

What I'm wrestling with is the relationship of the cross to atonement. As I (mis?)understand it, atonement was made possible through the cross i.e. it is the solution to existing or past estrangement.

This past year has been Year C (Gospel of Luke) in the Revised Common Lectionary and I've done a fair bit of reading for preaching on the theology of Luke-Acts. One of the more interesting commentaries pointed out that many scholars see Luke-Acts as completely lacking in atonement theology. Others point out they're wrong but I think what the first lot are noticing is that that in Luke-Acts there is no strong focus on the atoning work of the cross itself. ( e.g. unlike Pauline theology)

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

Peter, however, seems to be suggesting something different, namely, that the cross rather than being a solution is the major reason for the rupture between humanity (especially the Jews and proselytes) and God because it killed the Messiah.

No. Don't agree with this. The rupture with humanity was there from the start of Jesus' ministry. "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand!". The cross was a symptom of our brokenness, not its reason.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The cross, in other words, does not effect atonement but causes or focuses on the need for atonement. So is the argument that the atoning feature of the cross is that its efficacy is not the crucifixion itself but a later recognition by humanity of its responsibility for such an appalling act? Hence the atonement offered by Peter to those who answered to call to “Repent and be baptised."

I think the atonement theology (of the cross itself) of Luke-Acts is kind of based around the submission to God's will idea or the idea of selflessness. Unless a grain of wheat falls and dies it produces no fruit etc.

Atonement just means at-one-ment with God. There are multiple layers and ways in which this can happen.

The recognition of the collective evil of humanity when faced with Good/God in the death of Jesus is indeed a huge slap in the face and a call to repentance.

I guess what I'm saying in answer to your question is that the cross as an act of Jesus and the response of people to repentance in view of this can both be valid in terms of "atonement".

Yet the only thing that ultimately validates both is the resurrection.

There is no "atonement" without resurrection.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
EE, you have already been warned on this very thread about taking comments personally and responding in kind. Now you're doing it again. Not a good idea.

I apologise.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
Sure thing. Perhaps, then, you could take more care to avoid implying that those who disagree with you on the atonement are disregarding what the Bible says. Deal?

I would just politely like to point out to you that I am actually the one who is being told he is unbiblical:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
Evil does not have to be punished. That's not biblically true...

And then from the same contributor...

quote:
Well y'know. I don't accept that the bible is authoritative in the same kind of sense as my Evangelical relatives, but I kinda expect people who make an argument based on the bible narrative to know what it says.

And then from Evensong, while strictly speaking not totally dismissing my view as unbiblical, it comes about as close as one can get, especially given the context of her other comments...

quote:
The truth is there are a number of different biblically defensible atonement models.

Yours is one of the weakest.

And then from deano...

quote:
All I do know is that any exegesis that results in a god that demands a death before he will help us is fundamentaly flawed, both the exegesis and god.

I could go on...

Now, Kev, before we do our 'deal', perhaps you would like to take all the above into account, and ask these contributors the same question that you asked me, and also enquire as to why they are ... to quote your exact words... "implying that those who disagree with you on the atonement are disregarding what the Bible says".

The process of negotiating a deal involves being fair to all parties. I am sure you would agree with that?

Lastly, please quote where I said - or implied - that other people's view of the atonement was not biblical? (All I have been doing is defending my own position against attacks, and I have not implied that different theories of the atonement are mutually exclusive. I have never said that there is only 'one' theory of the atonement. It's some of the others on this thread who are limiting the understanding of the atonement, by dismissing one particular theory.)

Deal?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

That's absolutely right, I believe you are being thoroughly unbiblical, EE. In fact, other than asserting an opinion based on two or three random verses from the bible, I don't see that you've offered a biblical defence of your position at all.

In contrast, I don't have to offer a biblical defence of my position - first because I didn't offer it as authoritative, second because I'm not claiming to be anything other than heterodox, third because I'm not claiming that my position is based solely on the bible anyway.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Lastly, please quote where I said - or implied - that other people's view of the atonement was not biblical?

I was under the same impression as SCK that you were arguing your version of atonement theology was Truth.

Came (not the least ) from these comments:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If that is "Bronze age" thinking, as some have said, then so be it. I'll have that any day over the confusion, dysfunction and neurosis of post-modern ambiguity.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

What you are proposing is the one option which is a travesty of logic.

As for conforming to the thinking of the past: I couldn't care less. What I am interested in is truth, not being seen to go along with the latest fad.

[ 20. December 2013, 13:14: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I think there are good non-biblical reasons for believing things, there are bad biblical reasons for believing things.

EE's argument seems to me to be both nonsensical and not really biblical.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

To be honest, I reckon you can find quotes in the Bible to support any position you care to take short of advocating Satanism!

I am willing to accept that everyone’s – including EE’s – version of the atonement can be justified Biblically. That actually makes all of them suspect, including the one I hold to.

That’s the reason I believe people advocate an atonement theory that “feels” right for their own character. If you unilaterally believe that to be “The Truth” then fair enough, but it certainly doesn’t make it so.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

deano, I meant to say earlier, well done.

Evensong. God sent Himself. Knowingly. Knowing that when human, He would feel the compulsion, His Father's expectation, the confusion, the uncertainty, the unknowing, the fear, the horror, the loss, the agony, the madness of it all.

In theory.

And then He experienced all that alone to oblivion.

How could He not believe and experience, live and die Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't think I'm that far from either deano or Martin.

God created this world and us in it. He could have made it so that we would always automatically do His will, but that would make us robots. Loving us means giving us the possibility also to do things He doesn't want.

But it isn't easy. The fact that God created each one of us differently (which is a wonderful thing) means that there are flaws in communication. The fact that resources are finite means that there can be conflicts over them. And all too often, these things are resolved not by love, but by power.

I don't believe in Original Sin or things like that, but I do think that given these conditions, realistically we will fail sometimes.

But the thing is: God knows that. When He came to this world in Jesus, He experienced all of this. He tried to show us a different way of living, but in doing this, He also experienced what it is like to be rejected by power.

When He died on the Cross, He felt how it is to be abandoned by men and paradoxically, God also experienced what it is like to be abandoned by God.

What I like to believe is that He didn't like this experience at all, and that because of this, He will never abandon us either. That is the importance of the Cross to me. (I also like how the promise God made after the Flood is echoing here.)

This doesn't mean that the things we have done have no consequences at all. I do believe that we have come to face with what we've done, and make amends with the people we've hurt (I thoroughly reject the view of sin of being something exclusively between us and God).

And the Cross isn't the end of the story of course. I've said this before, but the Resurrection is something of a 'fool's hope' to me, a hope against all odds that power and the things we've done wrong won't have the final word in the end.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
Actually, I think EE's got a point. deano said this:

quote:
If God has come up with that rule [that God must have a punishment in order to forgive], He can also dismiss it as unnecessary, and so no punishment is needed.
It makes God rather inconsistent at best. Why would God make the rule in the first place if he's later going to dismiss it as unnecessary? Why would God decide it's unnecessary - what had happened that had changed the nature of sin that it no longer needed to be punished (assuming, for the sake of argument, that "punished" is the right terminology here)? deano doesn't spell it out: again, assuming for the sake of argument that God had at one point decided that sin required punishment, from which forgiveness could then flow, what would change to make God disregard that rule? Is God really in the business of making rules and then deciding, for reasons unspecified, that he's simply going to disregard them - if anyone else did that, we'd rightly be wary of them.

That said, I'm not 100% convinced the formulation "sin needs punishing which leads to forgiveness" is correct, or at least that it's the whole story. I am convinced that sin needs dealing with (to use a horrible vague term): it can't just be swept under the carpet. Sin, ISTM, is that which most endangers humanity, that cuts us of from God and each other, that hurts and ultimately destroys us. It is an offence to God that his world is blighted by it and that the pinnacle of his creation, humanity, is so caught up in it. I don't think it'll do to say that this doesn't need "naming and shaming", that God's love means he can just turn a blind eye to it. And I think we're so caught up in it - all of us, the sins we commit and the sins others commit against us - that we can't be free from it on our own.

I think what God's love does say is that he can't stand for us to be caught up in sin, for it to corrode us and put us on a path to destruction. So I think what something of what happened on the cross (and I'm drawing a bit on NT Wright here, see this article for an example) is God does expose and nullify the reality and the consequences of sin, but that he does that in Jesus - in God's own self. Why? So that we humans can be truly free from sin and its consequences. Not just in a "so we don't have to face the punishment we deserve" sense: I mean consequences in a much broader sense, in terms of the destructive effects it can have on our lives as much as anything. I also think it means we can, if we are in Christ, live towards that day when we and the world are free from sin completely.

So I don't think simply saying "sin leads to punishment which leads to forgiveness" is sufficient. Neither is simply "If God's made this rule then he can disregard it": that doesn't make God more faithful and loving, but less. I think it's more about sin being exposed for what it is, the consequences of sin being acted out fully (in Jesus, in God, the only one who could fully bear those consequences and then overcome them) and then people being set free from it and reconciled to God and each other.

I think...

I broadly agree with this post.

I can understand people having a problem with or reacting to the word 'punishment', so perhaps 'consequences' is more helpful. But the point I was making is that God does not subvert His own moral law. In fact, He doesn't subvert any of His laws. For example, I don't believe that miracles are a subversion of natural laws, but rather an overruling of them with laws from a higher dimension. God's moral law is an expression of His moral character, and Jesus made clear that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. God is not embarrassed by His own law, that He needs to abolish it by an act of authority in order to forgive people.

I can understand that some people recoil from the Penal Substitionary Theory of the atonement (PSA), because it has a lot of baggage associated with original sin - or more accurately: inherited guilt. I must admit that I am rather sceptical about the concept of original sin, and I certainly do not accept the verdict of inherited guilt. PSA also seems to turn grace into a legalistic mechanism, but I would like to suggest that that is the result of a rather half-hearted and compromised understanding of the doctrine, which seems to suggest that Christ's death is only legally efficacious for those who believe it.

But if we take PSA to its logical conclusion, then from an entirely legal point of view everyone is saved. I certainly believe in "legal universalism". I also believe in the reality of hell, and the very real possibility of some people going there. Is this a contradiction? Absolutely not! There are fundamentally two aspects to salvation: the legal and the spiritual. Someone can be legally acquitted, but still be bound by evil. In fact, it's very easy to see that this is undeniably true even in our secular society. A defendant may be acquitted, but leaves the court with a heart full of hatred, bitterness and violence. Legal acquittal has no sanctifying power. As I have explained numerous times on this site, I believe that hell is the experience of the love and reality of God in the consciousness of the unrepentant person.

There is a certain kind of liberalism that cannot accept this idea. There seems to be the idea that no one could possibly feel any discomfort in the love of God. This, of course, strips God's love of any moral content. 'Love' is redefined as 'licence': anything goes, and God will indulge you despite the wickedness of your heart. Even the most depraved person will, it is claimed, just run into the arms of the God of love, despite his pride and general defiance. If there is one thing that the Bible says about the love of God it is this: it works according to the moral law of God. That is because love has a moral content. Love therefore condemns evil; it does not indulge it or those who wilfully engage in it.

The idea that God can "just forgive" without the necessity of Him through Christ taking into Himself the inevitable outworking of the moral law when applied to evil, is tantamount to saying that God subverts His own law. The fact that God has paid such a terrible price to uphold the integrity of His own moral law, is testament to His consistency, His faithfulness and His utter trustworthiness. On the contrary, a 'God' who is willing to cast aside His own moral law "in the name of love", and for whom forgiveness is not costly, is a 'God' not worthy of anyone's trust. It's just a cheap "good bloke" view of God. This kind of idea is behind the view of forgiveness that can just ignore the demands of justice. On another recent thread I gave the example of a Christian woman who had been raped by a pastor, and other Christians just kept urging her to forgive and forget without encouraging her to seek for the perpetrator to be prosecuted. She claimed that she was being re-abused by these Christians - re-raped. I can well believe that. This is the outworking of a concept of love which is amoral. It is an idea of love which has cast aside the moral law.

The entire Bible supports the legal view of the atonement (and there are other aspects to the atonement, which are useful, but which do not undermine this central idea). The system of animal sacrifices, by which atonement was made for sin, were simply pointers to the one truly efficacious sacrifice of Christ. This is the fundamental message of Hebrews. Galatians 3:13 sums it up: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)

The objections that I have read on this thread to the legal view of the atonement are utterly unconvincing, although I certainly accept, as mentioned, that there are many aspects to the atonement, which complement each other. The 'Christus Victor' view certainly has merit, for example, in that Christ came to destroy the works of the evil one. And the moral example view proposed by Abelard et al is both inspiring and challenging, of course.

The legal view is by far the most liberating view of the atonement. The curse of the law has gone, because a morally consistent and trustworthy God has dealt with it, and we can now live freely in His grace. If some people think this is 'violent' and 'abusive', well all I can say is that, in one sense it is: because evil is violent and abusive. That is why the love of God has no truck with it, not now or in eternity.

[ 20. December 2013, 22:12: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Substitionary should be Substitutionary.

Missed that in the editing. Oops.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That's for us again, dealing with us as we are, small minded, bitter, childish, walking around with a pair of scales, demanding 'fairness'.

That IS us again. God's grace and restitution is incomparably vaster.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Evensong. God sent Himself. Knowingly. Knowing that when human, He would feel the compulsion, His Father's expectation, the confusion, the uncertainty, the unknowing, the fear, the horror, the loss, the agony, the madness of it all.

In theory.

And then He experienced all that alone to oblivion.

How could He not believe and experience, live and die Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Do you mean that despite the fact that it's in the TaNaKh which He had completely absorbed and despite the fact that He transcended it and His chroniclers and apologists DIDN'T, He completely did despite using the same language?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Who da fark you talkin to boy?

I'll add another [Confused]

for good measure.

[Biased]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

[Smile]

with SOL.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I give up. Your obscurity is obfuscating.

I would ask you to consider Jesus' humanity however.

He was not only God, he was 100% man too.

Most atonement theologies cannot contain the two that Chalecdon tries to delineate.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Evensong. I ABSOLUTELY agree with you. AND see that Jesus saw Himself, as did over a thousand years of culture behind Him, as fulfilling the requirements, the language, the assumption of penal substitutionary atonement. As did and do the vast majority since. It's culturally impossible otherwise.

WE in our expanded consciousness in HIS (multiply expanded {c/C}onsciousness) now do not want or need PSA. Thanks to having experienced it. Benefitted from it. Stood on its shoulders. His. Thanks to Him having knowingly been it. It isn't me who is obscure, it's the entire narrative that better people than I need to articulate.

I see that, in my obscurity and merely point it out, badly.

It is complex like a four dimensional spatial or five dimensional spatio-temporal object. Or we couldn't be engaging with it as unclearly, as blurringly scintillatingly multi-facetedly as we do.

You represent one postmodern facet well. Not one Jesus would have understood or that could have been communicated to Him with any figure of speech I've seen in the first place.

Here we ALL are, working it out still.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
AND see that Jesus saw Himself, as did over a thousand years of culture behind Him, as fulfilling the requirements, the language, the assumption of penal substitutionary atonement.

Now there is where you are wrong.

Very, very wrong.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Uh huh. PROVE it. From what was said about Him for a thousand years and more and by Him. Adduce it from the texts, not your narrow and indeed legalistically pomo ipse dixit.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Let's get this straight.

Are you saying penal substitution is the only valid biblical and historical atonement theory?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

STIR-RUTH WOMAN! Don't you know me by now? It's there. It's in the words and minds of Isaiah, Jesus reported - accurately - by Matthew, Mark, Luke; Paul, Peter at least. It's dominant one way and another even in traditions that claim to deny it, the language cannot be avoided, denied.

But it can be deconstructed and expanded. Must be. You've been part of leading me to that. Used to do that.

God be praised, thank you.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's there. It's in the words and minds of Isaiah, Jesus reported - accurately - by Matthew, Mark, Luke; Paul, Peter at least. It's dominant one way and another even in traditions that claim to deny it, the language cannot be avoided, denied.

The suffering servant language of Isaiah is prominent and ubiquitous in the New Testament.

The idea of punishment (penal) and the particular verse from Isaiah 53 about punishment is not.

I always remember my New Testament professor saying there was no idea that Jesus was punished in the New Testament.

The idea of punishment is an Old Testament hangover from the Babylonian captivity.

[ 21. December 2013, 13:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The Consciousness was expanding Evensong, definitely, but this thread was driven by Jesus' acceptance of His fate, the Father's will. The New Testament is drenched in punishment by every other name. Sacrifice. Curse. Atonement. Justification. The ancient Egyptian scales. The wages of sin. Our punishment for feckless existence is death. For three thousand years and more it's the dominant understanding, including Jesus'. And yes we need to deconstruct it, expand on it, transcend it. Not pretend it wasn't there. Jesus' courage, as I have said before, was all the more awesome, as He didn't have our understanding. He had Isaiah's. How could He not?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

God did not create us immortal Martin. Death was never a punishment .

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

WE know that Evensong. The Bible doesn't. Jesus didn't. Couldn't. How? What inkling did even He have with His divine consciousness in meat? The vast majority of Christians don't and can't know that.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
WE know that Evensong. The Bible doesn't. Jesus didn't.

I don't think you're hearing me Martin.

Jesus and the gospel writers DID NOT believe his death was a punishment.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I hear you fine Evensong. I did the first time. You're not hearing me. Or them:

Isaiah did. Paul did. But Jesus and His immediate chroniclers didn't? Jesus didn't submit to the Father's will to drink the dregs, the wages, the sting, the punishment of sin (Whoops! That's applying the anachronism of Paul again?)?

How could even the divinely transcendent Jewish man, bursting with the Consciousness of God perichoretically infused with the human, NOT ignorantly, fearfully, faithfully feel that He was the penal substitutionary atonement?

He submitted to prophecy couched in those bitter, Bronze Age, harsh, childhood of consciousness terms. Which He FELT.

Otherwise we're treading in to Apollinarian-Docetic territory. Whereas I of course am veering in to Arianism.

BALANCE eh?

To THIS pomo, all things are true.

[ 22. December 2013, 09:32: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Sorry to keep dipping in and out.

Martin, please can you show me (on this thread if I have missed it) where Jesus uses words that inform your view?

Thanks,

Pyx_e.

[ 22. December 2013, 09:55: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Quite.

Thanks the lord for Pyx_e

*shakes head*

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

In the beginning ...

Mark 9:12 (NIV) 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?'

Matthew 20:28 (NIV) just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28 (NIV) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

If we're restricted to the Gospels and can't include Paul because he was a nasty PSAer?

Jesus' consciousness was obviously NOT as expanded as ours in this regard. How could it be?

We cannot recreate Him in our own image.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If we're restricted to the Gospels

...but of course we are not.

Anyway, Matthew is probably a bit hard of hearing.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I thank the Lord for you all and shake my head at your head shaking Evensong. While you are implicitly patronizingly "You just don't get it." ... you just don't, can't get it, won't get it. You are being exclusive and counter-postmodern. I DON'T want, require, believe in PSA. To make Jesus NOT, even in His transcendent, mystical, yearning understanding, is to diminish His humanity. His HUMAN courage.

He did NOT disabuse His culture of PSA. He's disabusing some of OURS. Or with us in that more neutrally and inclusively.

To Adrian Warnock and most Christians, from Paul and Peter on, for most of 2000 years, whatever their apologists say now and whatever some of them, like the Cappadocian fathers realized in The Enlightenment by The Consciousness - through progressive revelation in The Spirit, PSA cannot be avoided as a HUMAN understanding and must be embraced and transcended. NOT denied. Even Martin Luther realized that about Transubstantiation I believe.

Ah well. We all have our blind spots.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Mark 9:12 (NIV) 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?'

Matthew 20:28 (NIV) just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28 (NIV) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

There is nothing of punishment from God in those quotes.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: I thank the Lord for you all and shake my head at your head shaking Evensong.

I now have an image in my head of Martin and Evensong shaking their heads together. It looks rather funny.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I'm withya.

Not sure about Martin.

[ 23. December 2013, 04:04: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Ok, so here's my take on things. Hope this post doesn't get too long...

ISTM that it helps to think in terms of four different types of punishment. We meet problems when we treat them as equivalent, when in fact they are very different.

1. Vengeance. Punishment that comes only out of a thirst for justice.

2. Revenge. Punishment of another because they have wronged you and have become your enemy.

3. Discipline. Loving punishment with the motive of maturing the subject, and the protection of others.

4. Self-punishment. Our treatment of ourselves as a result of the spiral of sin.

So, from that, a few thoughts. Firstly, although it can be useful to see sin in terms of debt to God, taken too far, this means that we naturally see any punishment from God through the lens of vengeance. It's the only type of punishment where "the punishment fits the crime" must be true.

With discipline, that's not necessarily the case. It can be, but, if the goal is maturity and change, then a disciplinary punishment only exists with that in mind. With children going in a naughty corner, for example, people often give them that time out for a number of minutes proportional to their age. So the punishment fits the level of maturity we expect from them. Also, if someone has done something wrong, and as a natural consequence of their experience, guilt and so on, has 'learned their lesson', then there is little to no value in any punishment from a discipline point of view. With discipline, the punishment does not have to fit the crime.

So, this is partly my problem with a certain concept of PSA. Because it understands sin primarily in terms of debt to God, that sin can only be dealt with through satisfying vengeance. For me, that's too simplistic an understanding of sin. It's as if we have 5,471,982,992 Trillion cosmic units of sin (or some other number) where each sin represents however many units, and that price must be paid in full. Step in Jesus.

My problem with that is that it only works under the 'vengeance' form of punishment, where the punishment must fit the crime. And I'm becoming more and more convinced that God doesn't do vengeance.

My next observation is that, in terms of an eternal Hell, it's only revenge, and self-punishment that makes any sense. With vengeance, ultimately the price has to be paid. Vengeance is totally about justice, so once the debt it paid off, that's it. To punish further would be revenge, would be unjust. Same with discipline. An eternal discipline is nonsensical. (Btw, I appreciate here the argument about eternity not being the same as infinity, but I am not persuaded by them).

So an eternal punishment can only be revenge, or self-abuse. Personally, I think, from God's point of view, we can discount revenge, because if vengeance is about justice, then revenge jettisons justice, and is practically abuse. God is not unjust, and not an abuser. So, we're left with CS Lewis's "hell is locked from the inside".

I recently had a very vivid dream, where I had at my mercy the most evil, despicable man I could encounter. He was an abuser of children, manipulator, murderer, and I could see nothing redeemable in him, and felt the most intense anger and hatred for him and what he'd done. And he was entirely at my mercy, and he knew it, and I can still picture the fear in his eyes. I began imagining ways I could torture this man for what he had done, to cause him the most pain - boy did he deserve it.

But then, in the dream, something held me back. I knew that what I was about to do was wrong, even though I could see no logical reason why not. He definitely deserved it. Genesis says that human beings have the knowledge of good and evil, and it was that internal knowledge that held me back. By punishing him, the monster, I would have turned into a monster. Anyway, I then woke up, but, it was a powerful dream.

Sometimes when we talk about God and punishment, it's as if we forget the standards to which we hold our fellow humans, just because he's God. God could exert revenge and vengeance on all the wicked people whenever he wants, but it's evident that he doesn't, because they keep getting away with it. The idea that he will one day doesn't satisfy, because to hold off punishment seems to go against the very natures of vengeance and revenge (they require the immediate). I think that God doesn't do revenge or vengeance, simply becase he is Good, and they are ultimately Evil. To do so would turn God into a monster, just as it would have me in my dream. That's why Free Will, that's why The Problem of Suffering.

So finally, in terms of the Gospel and how we share it, I think when we phrase things purely in terms of there's Sin that needs to be dealt with, then we're missing a trick. That's important, but it's only part of the story. It gets us back to zero again, but it doesn't do anything new. And we can even think that because Jesus has taken the entire punishment (vengeance) then we will not be punished (disciplined). But that's a category error. God's discipline is a good thing that we should bear with pride and thanks, and use it for our maturity, as was intended. But we can stand firm knowing that we will never be punished for the sake of it (revenge or vengeance), because if any human parent that acts that way is an abuser, then certainly God is not an abuser. We are safe as his children.

And the other part of the Gospel that is the most important is releasing people from the cycle of self-punishment. If that's the thing that really has the true influence on our eternal destiny, then that's surely the most important of all? All the people stuck in the pit of addiction, meaningless sex, depression, abuse, insecurity, self-hatred, and so on, don't need to be told that they're bad people that need to be punished. They already know it; that's why they are punishing themselves. We actually need to show them divine love and friendship, and drag each other out of the gutter.

Sheesh, sorry the post was so long. These things have been flying round my head for a good few days, and I needed to write them down. Back to it, Martin and Evensong [Biased]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Matthew 26:28 (NIV) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
There is nothing of punishment from God in those quotes.

That really depends on the witness of Scripture concerning the condition of humanity in God's sight if sin were to remain unforgiven.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Etymological Evangelical

quote:
If there is one thing that the Bible says about the love of God it is this: it works according to the moral law of God. That is because love has a moral content. Love therefore condemns evil; it does not indulge it or those who wilfully engage in it.

Luke 15: 20. Jesus:

quote:
So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him

The more I read posts around this topic on the ship the more I become convinced of a company divided by two competing paradigms of the nature of God.

The first model emphasises the God of Justice, which fastens on his righteousness, purity, and disgust of sin. The image is one of a court-room where God as Judge dispenses justice with integrity. He is also a God of Love, but whose love is conditional on the strict maintenance of his moral law, the breaking of which carries severe penalties. Consequently, in order for his love to be expressed and fulfilled, the fines or penalties for sin have to be paid in full by the guilty, or another. Under this model the righteous nature of God takes precedence over his loving nature: his "wrath" has first to be satisfied.

The second model emphasises God as a Father who unconditionally loves his children. The image here is not one of a court-room, where there is a formal, dispassionate administration of justice, but of family-type relationships, where ties of irrational affections dominate the dynamic. Sinful behaviour has to be dealt with because it is destructive of the family unit, inviting a process of healing and regeneration, rather than punishment. In this model judgement is less a judicial sentence than a diagnosis that invites an admission of one's condition and a determination to seek a cure i.e. and act of repentance.

IMO it is this latter model to which the gospels point. God is not so much worried about the maintenance of his moral law as he is about the way in which sinful behaviour drives his children away from home. That, it seems me, is the simple thrust of the parable of the Father and Two Sons. I find it difficult to see how this parable of Jesus fits in with the kind of model favour by supporters of PSA and their fellow-travellers.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What Kwesi said. To his verse concerning the love of the Father of the prodigal son, I would add these, explicitly describing love:

"It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs"

According to some on this thread, God cannot do this. Ergo, their God cannot love. Not as it's described here, anyway.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
it keeps no record of wrongs

Yeah, Karl, that verse sprung to my mind as I was reading this thread the other day too.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Evensong, sacrifice, propitiation, atonement, curse, sin, death, crime, punishment, justice that's our narrative, in the Bible. If you won't see that, in yours, no problem. He entered it. Transmuted it. Transcended it. In mine. And the vast majority of Christians.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ay up. I was struck anew by Matthew 26:28 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.' in communion this morning.

This was after reading a string of Marcus Borg on Unfundamentalist Christians. I haven't understood him yet. On the 'correct' payment theory. I want it to be so, but don't get it.

IF there is no punishment for sin, at the very least in Jesus' Earthly narrative, is there only punishment BY sin? Which includes, but far from always, our realisation of guilt? Is it the perception and feelings of guilt for the suffering we have caused, that are forgiven?

The only way that can be meaningful at all is as if the suffering we have caused is undone. Otherwise we are guilty of having done eternally irreparable harm and no forgiveness can change that. It just becomes meaningless and lends itself to gutter (Joel Osteen type) Augustineanism-Calvinism: A handful of SS camp guards are saved and their millions of Jewish, gipsy and gay victims burn twice, the second time forever.

But that leaves those who don't feel guilty in the slightest (which could include both the SS and their victims of course). And is His blood not sufficient for all, only for many, which could be a large number and a tiny proportion?

This can't go away. Elsewhere, possibly Hell, Evensong in jocular manner you said you weren't so sure about me because of this thread I believe.

Believe me I want to be a fully paid up deconstructed pomo liberal. I say again, Jesus wasn't. He might be now, since His resurrection, but He wasn't when it hurt.

He believed our sins needed forgiving and could only be by His blood. If they weren't, what are the consequences? Suffering. Suffering the consequences. Consequences that don't end. Eternal punishment. Or WORSE, eternal suffering.

It is semantic nonsense to say that we are only punished by our sins and not for them. Many are NOT punished by them in any felt way. They miss out on being fully developed people, but they don't know that.

So again, why did Jesus HAVE to choose to submit to the Father's will that He pour out His blood for the forgiveness of sins IF the consequences of sin are not punishing? Which they are in many ways.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Uh oh. 8-up. That's where you said it Evensong. Did you say it elsewhere more pointedly ... ? ... Thought not.

My apologies. But surely you MUST think me suspect?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ay up. I was struck anew by Matthew 26:28 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.' in communion this morning.

Ratification of the second covenant as per the fist covenant with Moses in Exodus.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

IF there is no punishment for sin

Who said there is no punishment for sin? The biblical witness certainly sees that there is punishment for sin; Jesus being punished for our sins is the problem at hand here, not punishment in general. The entire reason for the exile was punishment for idolatry. It's what the book of the prophet Jeremiah drones on and on about.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
IF there is no punishment for sin, at the very least in Jesus' Earthly narrative, is there only punishment BY sin? Which includes, but far from always, our realisation of guilt? Is it the perception and feelings of guilt for the suffering we have caused, that are forgiven?

The only way that can be meaningful at all is as if the suffering we have caused is undone. Otherwise we are guilty of having done eternally irreparable harm and no forgiveness can change that.

Are you familiar with the sacrament of reconciliation/penance?

Four main steps. Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction, Absolution. The satisfaction one is important. These days five hail Mary's or the like is often proscribed but that's really rubbish.

On the point of satisfaction:

quote:
Satisfaction

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much.

Sin has serious consequences and effects. To be reconciled with our neighbor we have to ask for their forgiveness and try and put things right if we can.

Some suffering can't be undone. All we can do is repent and ask for forgiveness (of both God and neighbour) and God has promised us that he will be merciful if we truly are repentant.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

But that leaves those who don't feel guilty in the slightest (which could include both the SS and their victims of course). And is His blood not sufficient for all, only for many, which could be a large number and a tiny proportion?

Are you aware that blood in the Hebrew scriptures is often consonant with life?

quote:
Gen 9:3-4 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

When we speak of the blood of Christ in the New Testament and in the Eucharist, substituting life for blood is quite okay.

When you are given the cup at the Eucharist and told "this is my blood", you could quite easily translate that "this is my life".

This makes perfect sense in Pauline language as we participate in the life of Christ etc.

As for those that don't repent of their sins or feel guilty in the slightest when committing atrocities, they will be judged; if not in this life, then in the next.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

He believed our sins needed forgiving and could only be by His blood.

Forgiveness has been given over and over and over again before the time of Christ in the history of salvation.

[code. But left "fist covenant"]

[ 20. January 2014, 19:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

In reverse order:

No comparison.

Judgement - a good day for everyone. The start of a walk with a talk that lasts as long as it takes.

Of course I am. Why do you ask?

All suffering will be restituted.

Jesus believed our sins needed forgiving and could only be by His blood. That there was a penalty - AKA punishment - that only He could pay.

Was He wrong?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Jesus believed our sins needed forgiving and could only be by His blood. That there was a penalty - AKA punishment - that only He could pay.

Was He wrong?

That's not what he believed.

You are wrong.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Riggghhht.

You can't imagine how disappointed I am Evensong. And it's not for being wrong. We're all wrong. You no less.

Any one else able to do the dialectical work necessary to overcome the 2000 year old thesis from Jesus' own mouth with a superior antithesis?

Can anyone answer the question why Jesus was compelled to choose to die, compelled to choose to lose His life blood for our forgiveness?

Or does that question not exist?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I'm sorry I've disappointed you Martin but I'm not sure why I have. I've merely disagreed with your interpretation that sacrifice = punishment.

Lots of people have answered your questions in the thread above. It seems you just don't find them satisfactory. Fair enough. I know about itches.

My New Testament professor John Dunnill is good value on biblical sacrifice. If you can trawl through a rather academic text you could do much worse than read his book on biblical understandings of sacrifice: Sacrifice and the Body: Biblical Anthropology and Christian Self-Understanding

I recall four main reasons for sacrifice in the bible from one of our lectures. I think John is big on sacrifice as communion.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Jesus believed our sins needed forgiving and could only be by His blood. That there was a penalty - AKA punishment - that only He could pay.

Was He wrong?
That's not what he believed.

You are wrong.

Um, I think Jesus can speak for himself on this one. Let's break it down.

Jesus believed that the giving of his life was necessary. Check. (Luke 24:46; Mark 10:45)
Jesus believed that people's sins needed forgiving by his blood. Check. (Luke 12:10; Luke 24:47; and especially Matthew 26:28
Jesus believed that there is some form of penalty attached to sin. Check. (John 8:24)

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Can anyone answer the question why Jesus was compelled to choose to die, compelled to choose to lose His life blood for our forgiveness?

Or does that question not exist?

Your question rests on a huge presupposition, Martin. The presupposition that Jesus was somehow forced or coerced into choosing to die for sin.

If that is what you mean by Jesus having been compelled to choose to shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins then it's not a presupposition with which I agree so I am unable to answer your question as it is currently framed.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC....
Can anyone answer the question why Jesus was compelled to choose to die, compelled to choose to lose His life blood for our forgiveness?

Yes, I can answer the question.

God is both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

And what if both these qualities find themselves on a collision course? This conflict is not due to any contradiction in God, but due to something offensive having come into being in His creation - as a result of the freedom that God has given to some of His creatures. Justice responds to this offence in a certain way, while mercy responds in the opposite way.

God is merciful and desires to show mercy. But He does not subvert His own moral law, which flows from His moral character. If He did, then there would be a contradiction within Him. So He suffers, in order to show mercy.

Yes, we may have different ways of understanding the mystery of this suffering, but it is undeniably a necessity, if mercy and forgiveness is to be a reality in the lives of sinners.

A God who can just throw away the moral law on a whim is a God who cannot be trusted. After all, if He can act on a whim in this way, then why not in some other way? He may just decide to damn every single one of us, just for the fun of it. I mean, why not? If God can act in a completely arbitrary and capricious way - as the advocates of "God can just forgive as a pure act of authority" seem to suggest - then we worship a dictator, not a loving, righteous, just, merciful and trustworthy Father.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC....
Can anyone answer the question why Jesus was compelled to choose to die, compelled to choose to lose His life blood for our forgiveness?
Yes, I can answer the question.

You didn't answer the question, EE. Martin is asking why Jesus was compelled to choose to die for sin. He uses the word twice. His concern appears to be the element of compulsion, coercion, duress. Was Jesus under duress when he chose to die for sin? Or was he expressing the eternal purpose in the perfect unity of the eternal Trinity in when he chose the cross? Martin's presupposition appears to be the presence of compulsion, duress and coercion within the Trinity and therefore an element of compulsion in Jesus' choosing to die.

[ 21. January 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

daronmedway, the compulsion was in Jesus: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)

And you can bet that the Greek translation of His Aramaic words reflects that.

Not my will but THY will.

EE - yep. That's honest.

[ 21. January 2014, 13:10: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
daronmedway, the compulsion was in Jesus: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)

Um, Jesus' point appears to a rhetorical question based on the fact that the "MUST" was written in Scripture, and precisely not that the MUST was some kind of internal, personal, subjective compulsion.

[ 21. January 2014, 13:18: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
daronmedway, the compulsion was in Jesus: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)
Um, Jesus' point appears to a rhetorical question based on the fact that the "MUST" was written in Scripture, and precisely not that the MUST was some kind of internal, personal, subjective compulsion.

If Jesus is God then He is the one who wrote the Scripture in the first place. So it amounts to the same thing.

But I think that I can answer Martin's question in a different way.

Jesus was compelled to choose to die, compelled to choose to lose His life blood for our forgiveness because of what "forgiveness" actually is.

We think of God's forgiveness as a change of mind on His part, as if He relents from feelings of anger or takes back His intention to punish.

But God never changes. This is inconsistent with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Being.

Forgiveness is actually change on our part. Jesus' whole mission was to redirect the human race, and therefore to save it from itself. He saved us from the consequences of our own actions by redirecting us away from "evil" and towards good.

The reason that this involved His death and resurrection is that the essence of the mission to change the human race is that its attachment to worldly and self-centered goals must die and be replaced by the prioritization of heavenly and spiritual goals.

This death is described repeatedly in numerous ways in the Gospels, and it is acted out in Jesus' life.

We tend to discount and misunderstand the symbolic value of the death and resurrection theme in the Gospels, but it is what salvation is all about.

Everyone needs to allow their worldly and self-centered desires to "die" in order to be saved - so that God can give them new life, a life of love towards others and towards Him.

God came into the world and underwent this process in a way that was both physical and spiritual in order to break the power of evil and make this new life possible for every person.

This is why Jesus understood and accepted that He was compelled to allow Himself to be killed in order to accomplish the spiritual revolution in human hearts that needed to take place.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
daronmedway, the compulsion was in Jesus: 'Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?' Mark 9:12 (NIV)
Um, Jesus' point appears to a rhetorical question based on the fact that the "MUST" was written in Scripture, and precisely not that the MUST was some kind of internal, personal, subjective compulsion.
If Jesus is God then He is the one who wrote the Scripture in the first place. So it amounts to the same thing.

You might say that the three persons of the holy trinity caused the scriptures to be written by means of human agency, but that's not quite the same as saying Jesus wrote the bible. And it doesn't account for Martin's belief that Jesus was compelled to choose his own death, as if that death were entirely against his will.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You might say that the three persons of the holy trinity caused the scriptures to be written by means of human agency, but that's not quite the same as saying Jesus wrote the bible.

In the end it amounts to the same thing. But you are right in that Jesus never said "I wrote these Scriptures so I guess that I need to do what they say."

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And it doesn't account for Martin's belief that Jesus was compelled to choose his own death, as if that death were entirely against his will.

Jesus clearly did not want to die. There is no indication that He was eager for it. Rather, He accepted it, willingly. Still the Gospel accounts indicate struggle and torment.

All of this is consistent with the "die so you can have life" metaphor that runs through the Gospels.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I think it's more comex than that. Jesus didn't want to experience the agony of crucifixion. Who would? However, Jesus was aware that the whole trajectory of his life would end in his death and resurrection. In this sense I think it's possible to say that he did in fact want to save humanity by means of his death.

quote:
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. John 2:19-20

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God didn't write the Bible. We did.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmm. We're getting there. Getting to the mystery which involves everything INCLUDING PSA. Everything except it is not faithful to the courage of Jesus, His submission to His fate, to the texts, to which there can be no yeah but but yeah and.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I don't believe Jesus submitted to his fate; I believe he orchestrated his death. I honestly believe that this is what the gospel of John presents.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I believe both.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe Jesus submitted to his fate; I believe he orchestrated his death. I honestly believe that this is what the gospel of John presents.

I agree.

All that is saying is that He was both human and divine. He had two natures - the human which could struggle and suffer, and the divine, which is above all. They were joined at His death.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Freddy: All that is saying is that He was both human and divine. He had two natures - the human which could struggle and suffer, and the divine, which is above all. They were joined at His death.

At His death? I never heard this. (FWIW It's not what I believe.)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Freddy: All that is saying is that He was both human and divine. He had two natures - the human which could struggle and suffer, and the divine, which is above all. They were joined at His death.
At His death? I never heard this. (FWIW It's not what I believe.)

No, I wouldn't expect you to believe it. But this is what the New Church teaches.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Jesus believed our sins needed forgiving and could only be by His blood. That there was a penalty - AKA punishment - that only He could pay.

Was He wrong?
That's not what he believed.

You are wrong.
Um, I think Jesus can speak for himself on this one. Let's break it down.

Jesus believed that the giving of his life was necessary. Check. (Luke 24:46; Mark 10:45)
Jesus believed that people's sins needed forgiving by his blood. Check. (Luke 12:10; Luke 24:47; and especially Matthew 26:28
Jesus believed that there is some form of penalty attached to sin. Check. (John 8:24)

Nothing there about Jesus being punished by God.

(check)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe Jesus submitted to his fate; I believe he orchestrated his death. I honestly believe that this is what the gospel of John presents.

Yes it is what the gospel of John presents. But it's the gospel of John alone. Which is why the gospel almost didn't make the canon - too gnostic. Jesus was just God on earth, not true man.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Forgiveness is actually change on our part. Jesus' whole mission was to redirect the human race, and therefore to save it from itself. He saved us from the consequences of our own actions by redirecting us away from "evil" and towards good.

The reason that this involved His death and resurrection is that the essence of the mission to change the human race is that its attachment to worldly and self-centered goals must die and be replaced by the prioritization of heavenly and spiritual goals.

This death is described repeatedly in numerous ways in the Gospels, and it is acted out in Jesus' life.

We tend to discount and misunderstand the symbolic value of the death and resurrection theme in the Gospels, but it is what salvation is all about.

Everyone needs to allow their worldly and self-centered desires to "die" in order to be saved - so that God can give them new life, a life of love towards others and towards Him.

Yes.

[ 22. January 2014, 02:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe Jesus submitted to his fate; I believe he orchestrated his death. I honestly believe that this is what the gospel of John presents.
Yes it is what the gospel of John presents. But it's the gospel of John alone. Which is why the gospel almost didn't make the canon - too gnostic. Jesus was just God on earth, not true man.

I don't think that's right. The synoptic gospels also present it.

With regard to John's gospel being proto-gnostic, I totally disagree. The first chapter alone is enough to blow a hole the size of the moon in that argument.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe Jesus submitted to his fate; I believe he orchestrated his death. I honestly believe that this is what the gospel of John presents.
Yes it is what the gospel of John presents. But it's the gospel of John alone. Which is why the gospel almost didn't make the canon - too gnostic. Jesus was just God on earth, not true man.
I don't think that's right. The synoptic gospels also present it.
Matthew 16:21
Mark 10:33
Luke 9:51

Those texts refer to the fact that his death was inevitable in the tradition of the prophets and he knew it. And/or it was also foretold.

quote:
Luke 13:34

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

But orchestrating his own death is not part of the synoptics at all.

Acts is even clearer. It refers to you (the people) killing Jesus all the time.

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

With regard to John's gospel being proto-gnostic, I totally disagree. The first chapter alone is enough to blow a hole the size of the moon in that argument.

The first chapter refers to his divinity.

How do you see that as countering gnosticism? If anything it goes the other way - overemphasis on divinity to the detriment of his humanity.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Those texts refer to the fact that his death was inevitable in the tradition of the prophets and he knew it... But orchestrating his own death is not part of the synoptics at all.

Maybe "orchestrating" is not the perfect term, but the synoptics definitely portray Him as more than just a willing participant.

To quote more of what was quoted before:

quote:
Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Repeated in Mark 8:33

Jesus rebukes Peter for not being mindful of the things of God. Jesus, by contrast, is mindful and understands what is happening.

But more than just understanding it, He describes it as service, something that He is actively doing:

quote:
Matthew 20:28 “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

After His resurrection He describes it as the process of entering into His glory, a process that He understood and participated in from the beginning.

quote:
Luke 24:26 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

These themes are much more clearly laid out in John but they are certainly present in the synoptics.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Evensong,

quote:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

No Gnosticism here. And you a teacher of the Israel of God? [Disappointed]

As for the idea that Jesus wasn't orchestrating his death in the Synoptics? One might put it like this: Jesus committed suicide by Pharisee. The evidence is there in black and white, Evensong. The whole trajectory of his life led him to the cross. He walked into it. Literally.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If God can act in a completely arbitrary and capricious way - as the advocates of "God can just forgive as a pure act of authority" seem to suggest - then we worship a dictator, not a loving, righteous, just, merciful and trustworthy Father.

EE, you've said this a few times, but I just don't see how it makes sense.

Firstly, it seems to conflate forgiveness and reconciliation. The two are not the same.

Secondly, I can just forgive as a pure act of authority, but I fail to see how that makes me a dictator, or unloving / unjust / unmerciful / untrustworthy. In fact, specifically, I would say, being able to 'just forgive' is an innate part of being merciful.

Thirdly, you seem to be conflating "able to just forgive" with "choosing to forgive completely randomly". These aren't the same thing.

A God who requires some ritual, sacrifice or precondition (for example "the shedding of blood") is not just, loving or merciful (I'll grant you the trustworthy bit). That God is not just, because the precondition itself is arbitrary (why "shedding of blood"? Why not "spilling of milk" or "passing of urine"). That God is not loving or merciful, because (s)he allows such triviality to get in the way of relationship and forgiveness.

A God who requires "the punishment of sin" before they can forgive isn't loving or merciful. Is this how a good, loving, merciful parent would act, or a cold, unfeeling one? Does every wrong thing one's child do have to be punished, or is discipline only necessary sometimes? Surely a big part of parenting is deciding when to "just forgive" when your child is sorry, and when it is necessary to punish / discipline them?

And, anyway, it's not the God of Christianity, who consistently and faithfully offers forgiveness to all, as a pure act of authority, because (as the saying goes), "to err is human; to forgive is divine". Jesus asked his disciples to forgive without condition, because that is the way of his Father. Christianity has consistently affirmed that the penitent sinner will be forgiven. "The vilest offender who truly believes" and all that. Christianity consistently states that the problem lies in getting people to ask for the forgiveness in the first place. Once asked for, it is always freely given.

Now, to say all this, does not (as you have asserted earlier) mean that God has no moral law, or does not care about sin, or even hate sin, or that sin doesn't have consequences. Forgiveness does not say "what you did was okay". It says "despite the evil you did, I will let you off the hook; I will bless you; I won't punish you". It's not God abolishing God's own moral law or character or anything like that.

I know that there has already been a lot of back and forth on this already, but I think these are important points (in fact, for me, they are central to the gospel as I understand it), and I don't feel you've satisfactorily answered any of them.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A God who requires some ritual, sacrifice or precondition (for example "the shedding of blood") is not just, loving or merciful (I'll grant you the trustworthy bit). That God is not just, because the precondition itself is arbitrary (why "shedding of blood"? Why not "spilling of milk" or "passing of urine"). That God is not loving or merciful, because (s)he allows such triviality to get in the way of relationship and forgiveness.

The text of Hebrews 9:11-10:14 seems to contradict this. To pick out some key verses: Heb 9:22 ‘Under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins’. If we now refer to what Jesus said in Matt 5:17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them’ (ESV) it then follows that Jesus, by offering himself as a sacrifice, fulfilled the Law’s requirement for the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins: ‘[Jesus] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (Heb. 9:26, ESV)

The thing is, God makes the rules. It goes with him being creator of the universe. We can argue till we’re blue in the face about why he made the rules he did, and whether they are arbitrary or not, and we’ll get nowhere. Why did God make the rule that ‘without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins’? I haven’t the faintest idea. I don’t think we’ve been told. But God is infinitely clever, and smart, and wise, so he must have had his reasons. And trying to argue that God can’t do things the way he does because we don’t do them that way is futile. God doesn’t have to restrict his actions to conform to what his creation does. He’s the sovereign creator. Seems to me we have a simple choice. Accept what God has revealed about what he does and what he requires and what he offers, or engage in an ultimately futile self-delusion that God really ought to do what we think he should.

Angus

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

PSA is unavoidable in the library of texts, from Isaiah to Paul and beyond and in between.

As I AM now fully paid up to progressive revelation that doesn't mean that it is so in the slightest.

In fact it can't be, no matter how scholastic EE tries to be. It's a metaphor, a cultural limitation. And it worked. It still does. We certainly need to go beyond it, transcend it, deconstruct it the lot. But it's THERE. It was there for the Son of Man Himself.

To attempt to loop back our evolved understanding to Jesus Himself is utterly invalid. There is no evidence for it. The trajectory only moves forward and not to get to where Jesus was, but where He IS.

Jesus believed in PSA.

How could He NOT?

To say He was wrong and that I and billions of others are for seeing it plainly is a false dichotomy. And certainly isn't postmodern.

This is.

Jesus also believed in Satan the Devil. That doesn't make him so. So what? What else did Jesus believe from the Jewish scriptures that can't possibly be true?

Did He believe in God the Killer?

How could He NOT?

That's both a rhetorical AND an open question.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Evensong

Yes it is what the gospel of John presents. But it's the gospel of John alone. Which is why the gospel almost didn't make the canon - too gnostic. Jesus was just God on earth, not true man.

Really? Is that how you see John's Gospel? I find it, bar none, the most powerful declaration of His humanity as well as His divinity. Every time I open the pages I read of a very real man, with a very real personality. The synoptics tell, by and large, what Jesus did and taught. John portrays what He was like to know, to hang around with.

Furthermore, if we had only the synoptics, we might get the impression that Jesus acted, taught and healed out of his status as Son of God. In John we see that, far from operating from His divinity, He was in exactly the same position of any of us. He could only do what the Father told Him.

And, of course, far from being proto-gnostic, the fourth Gospel was written to refute, not commend, gnosticism

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Angus, I think that reading PSA into Hebrews is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the OT sacrificial system to which the epistle refers. The point was that sacrifice was the means by which covenants were ratified. Sins were forgiven because that is what God had, in His blood ratified covenant, promised to do, not because the sacrificial victim was "punished" in the sinners' place. When Peter was saying that, without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness, he was reiterating the Old Testament teaching that forgiveness was solely dependant on the grace of God in keeping His promises.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Martin, what evidence do you have that Jesus believed in a schema that wouldn't be invented until a thousand years after the Incarnation.

Was the Old Testament bloody and messy and violent? Of course it was, like the Bronze age in which it was written. But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that one of the main themes of the Old Testament, from at least the time of the near-sacrifice of Isaac onwards, was of God trying to wean His people away from the Pagan notion of blood-appeasement, towards reliance only on the character and promises, the chesed of God.

It's inconceivable to me that any good Rabbi, such as He was, would not have had an understanding of this.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A God who requires some ritual, sacrifice or precondition (for example "the shedding of blood") is not just, loving or merciful (I'll grant you the trustworthy bit). That God is not just, because the precondition itself is arbitrary (why "shedding of blood"? Why not "spilling of milk" or "passing of urine"). That God is not loving or merciful, because (s)he allows such triviality to get in the way of relationship and forgiveness.
The text of Hebrews 9:11-10:14 seems to contradict this.

...

Accept what God has revealed about what he does and what he requires and what he offers, or engage in an ultimately futile self-delusion that God really ought to do what we think he should.

Angus

Thanks Angus - yeah, I'm aware of those verses in Hebrews. I guess it simply boils down to interpretation. I can't square the 'obvious' reading of those verses (that shedding of blood is necessary for forgiveness) with the fact that there are plenty of examples of forgiveness throughout scripture (and especially from Jesus) where there was no shedding of blood. So I have to interpret Hebrews in the light of that more clear witness.

Blood wasn't shed when Jesus forgave the paraplegic man, or the woman caught in adultery, or when he told his disciples to forgive "70x7 times". Jesus seemed able to forgive at will, with no preconditions (even repentance!). Jesus' point to the Pharisees when he heals the paraplegic man is that he has authority to do what he wants - forgive, or heal - no conditions.

So, for me, that makes those verses in Hebrews fall into the hard to interpret category, though Jolly Jape has done a fine job of interpreting them above.

I have sympathy with the idea that it's easy to project our ideals onto God. We all fall into the trap of making God in our own image. The difficulty is discerning when we are doing that. The two stances you outline above are two ends of a scale, rather than two alternatives. We all wrestle with scripture, tradition, our own experience and understanding; somewhere between those two extremes. I also want to accept what God has revealed and follow it, but sometimes it is very hard to figure out exactly what it is he has revealed.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Angus - what if we "Accept what God has revealed about what he does and what he requires and what he offers" and conclude he's a complete bastard?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

Was the Old Testament bloody and messy and violent? Of course it was, like the Bronze age in which it was written. But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that one of the main themes of the Old Testament, from at least the time of the near-sacrifice of Isaac onwards, was of God trying to wean His people away from the Pagan notion of blood-appeasement, towards reliance only on the character and promises, the chesed of God.

This bronze age meme has got to stop. The Bronze Age Collapse happened around 1177BC, the earliest Biblical books date from around the 700s BC and the Book of Daniel was written around 164BC. Some scholars think that one or two canticles are genuinely archaic. I will concede that the militarised empires of the iron age and antiquity were every bit as uncharming as their bronze age predecessors.

I'm also not sure that the distinction between sacrifice and chesed is one that would have been terribly intelligible to a first century Jew. To his or her mind the ethical wisdom of the prophets and the chesed of God and the round of sacrifices in the Temple were all tied up into one seamless whole. There might, in time, have been a question as to whether or not it was appropriate for Christians to attend worship at the Temple (Luke seems to think that it was fine) but the Romans pre-empted any future controversy by burning it to the ground. Then, of course, Christians realised that Jesus' death and resurrection made the whole thing redundant anyway.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
originally posted by Evensong
Yes it is what the gospel of John presents. But it's the gospel of John alone. Which is why the gospel almost didn't make the canon - too gnostic. Jesus was just God on earth, not true man.
Really? Is that how you see John's Gospel? I find it, bar none, the most powerful declaration of His humanity as well as His divinity.

Thank you JJ.

It amazes me how often John is singled out on the ship as being the only source for certain concepts and throwing them into doubt. John did make the canon.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong,
quote:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
No Gnosticism here. And you a teacher of the Israel of God?

Oh you mean the half verse in the highest Christology in the New Testament? Your reference could have bit somewhat specific what?

Regardless: enfleshment is indeed against gnosticism but it's only the literal understanding. The bigger line is the fact that creation is bad and being human is a Bad Thing.

Whereas Chalcedon affirms Jesus is truly human as well as truly divine.

The gospel of John is different from the synoptics in that Jesus is much more the heavenly figure that walks the earth barely touching the ground at all: God merely pretending to be human.

The agony in the garden is deleted for example - too human.

No agony or cry of dereliction from the cross for example - too human.

He does get upset about Lazarus, yet still - it's a much more bland an in control picture.

And you a teacher of the Israel of God? [Disappointed]

As for Jesus' self-understanding of his death in the gospel of John: he speaks of what Freddy was talking about before his crucifixion in chapter 12.

Jesus answered them, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also.

No punishment nonsense in that.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
originally posted by Evensong

Yes it is what the gospel of John presents. But it's the gospel of John alone. Which is why the gospel almost didn't make the canon - too gnostic. Jesus was just God on earth, not true man.
Really? Is that how you see John's Gospel? I find it, bar none, the most powerful declaration of His humanity as well as His divinity. Every time I open the pages I read of a very real man, with a very real personality. The synoptics tell, by and large, what Jesus did and taught. John portrays what He was like to know, to hang around with.

Furthermore, if we had only the synoptics, we might get the impression that Jesus acted, taught and healed out of his status as Son of God. In John we see that, far from operating from His divinity, He was in exactly the same position of any of us. He could only do what the Father told Him.

I'm afraid I don't see that at all.....I've explained why a bit in the post above to daronmedway.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

And, of course, far from being proto-gnostic, the fourth Gospel was written to refute, not commend, gnosticism

Really? I was taught it barely got into the canon because it skated on thin ice too much. (Too docetic - being the more insidious form of gnosticism).

[ 23. January 2014, 11:39: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I'm not sure I get your point, Gildas. We can argue about the precise dating of the Bronze age/Iron age transition, but we are really only talking about a shorthand way of referring to differences, not only in technology, but in worldview. By "Bronze-age" thinking, I was referring to the pagan belief in angry gods which required propitiation by blood-sacrifices, often human. I don't think it unreasonable to see this sort of thinking at work during the period between the conquest and the creation of the Kingdom, when the ANE was on the Bronze/Iron Age transitional cusp. Of course, I can be argued that the accounts were later, and thus there was a certain amount of theological hindsight being read back into the accounts, but I'm not sure that this alters the point I am making.

As for the extent which the average, theologically literate Jew of the 1st century, understood these things, I still think that it is unlikely that the temple sacrifices were understood in terms of substitutionary atonement, rather than an appeal to the Covenant.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Those texts refer to the fact that his death was inevitable in the tradition of the prophets and he knew it... But orchestrating his own death is not part of the synoptics at all.
Maybe "orchestrating" is not the perfect term, but the synoptics definitely portray Him as more than just a willing participant.

Oh yes. He certainly knows what's going to happen and goes along with it but that's quite different to orchestrating it for the sake of it.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe "orchestrating" is not the perfect term, but the synoptics definitely portray Him as more than just a willing participant.

Oh yes. He certainly knows what's going to happen and goes along with it but that's quite different to orchestrating it for the sake of it.

I think that you are making too much of the difference between John and the synoptics. The differences are certainly there - Jesus is much more on board and suffers less in John - but Jesus is still subject to the Father's plan:

quote:
John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”

But again, are you saying that John's view is invalid because it just barely made it into the canon?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

JJ - He knew this: Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11—"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.". As we all do. One has to deliberately choose to be blind to exclude punishment from this narrative.

Regardless of Anselm's "The honour taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow" a thousand years later. Which is irrelevant as is most that follows in Calvin and beyond.

What would Jesus, the transcendent late ancient Jew have humanly FELT and thought? Even with the Consciousness of God bursting out in Him more than any other and only human rabbi.

A Consciousness that is inevitably having its cumulative effect through our two thousand year culture, back on track from Athanasius.

Scot McKnight: "What I want to say is not that this theory is wrong... I want to say is that the atonement is so much more than this. And, if it is so much more than this, then it follows that using “penal substitution” as our guiding term is inadequate and misleads others. At the least, it does not provide enough information to explain what one really believes occurs in the Atonement".

Which is THE sublime mystery.

[ 23. January 2014, 20:35: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Angus, I think that reading PSA into Hebrews is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the OT sacrificial system to which the epistle refers. The point was that sacrifice was the means by which covenants were ratified. Sins were forgiven because that is what God had, in His blood ratified covenant, promised to do, not because the sacrificial victim was "punished" in the sinners' place. When Peter was saying that, without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness, he was reiterating the Old Testament teaching that forgiveness was solely dependant on the grace of God in keeping His promises.

JJ, I wasn’t intending to read anything penal into Hebrews, nor anything substitutionary but just the need for sacrificial atonement as a requirement for forgiveness. Do you still think even that element is invalid?

I’m aware that the sacrifice of an animal was done in OT times to ratify a covenant at its initiation, but I don’t recall any case of continued sacrifice to ensure that the covenant endured. Sure, one could argue that the OT sacrificial system was continued by the people of Israel out of obedience to the covenant Law, but I would have thought that there was a clear connection between blood sacrifice and forgiveness of sins in the Laws on sin offerings and guilt offerings in Lev.4:2 – 6:7. After the instructions for sacrifice, there is a repeated refrain of ‘And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.’ Is it too much to read Heb.9:22 as referring back to that? I wouldn’t have thought so.

And then there’s Heb 7:27 where the author compares the Aaronic priesthood with the priesthood of Jesus, and says: ‘He [Jesus] has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for their own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.’ (ESV) Sin offerings produce forgiveness for those on whose behalf they are offered: by the priests under the OT sacrificial system; by Jesus as his self-offering for the sins of the world. (John 1:29)

-----------------------

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I can't square the 'obvious' reading of those verses (that shedding of blood is necessary for forgiveness) with the fact that there are plenty of examples of forgiveness throughout scripture (and especially from Jesus) where there was no shedding of blood. So I have to interpret Hebrews in the light of that more clear witness.

Blood wasn't shed when Jesus forgave the paraplegic man, or the woman caught in adultery, or when he told his disciples to forgive "70x7 times". Jesus seemed able to forgive at will, with no preconditions (even repentance!). Jesus' point to the Pharisees when he heals the paraplegic man is that he has authority to do what he wants - forgive, or heal - no conditions.

Yes, I can appreciate the tension (or, as some would describe it, contradiction) between the gospel accounts and the passage in Hebrews. I would like to present a form of understanding that reconciles the two, at least in my mind.

A description of what Jesus did in offering himself as a sacrifice for sin appears in Heb.9:23-28. He entered not into ‘holy places made with hands’ but ‘into heaven itself’ – not into an earthly, time-bound place (the holy of holies in the temple) – but into a heavenly extra-temporal place (of which the ‘holy place made with hands’ is a copy). (See also Heb.9:11-12). So, unlike the Aaronic sacrifices, which were in the time-constrained sequence of sin/sacrifice/forgiveness, and had to be repeated within time for every occasion of sin requiring forgiveness, the effect of the Melchizedekian sacrifice offered by Jesus in heaven isn’t constrained by time, but is effective retrospectively before the crucifixion and prospectively after it throughout all time. So when Jesus is reported as forgiving people in the gospels, it is in anticipation of the sacrificial offering which he will make in the future, but the effects of which apply throughout all time.

Sure, it’s an intellectual construct which can be criticised for not being explicit in the Bible, but which does allow the Biblical evidence to be formed into a coherent picture.

quote:
We all wrestle with scripture, tradition, our own experience and understanding; somewhere between those two extremes. I also want to accept what God has revealed and follow it, but sometimes it is very hard to figure out exactly what it is he has revealed.

Oh yes indeed. You and me both. [Smile]

-----------------

Karl:LB I’ll try to come back with a response another time, but I’ve already spent more time on this than I should have done.

Angus

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Martin PC:

Can anyone answer the question why Jesus was compelled to choose to die, compelled to choose to lose His life blood for our forgiveness?

Or does that question not exist?

Hi Martin,
Maybe no one can give someone committed to post modernism the answer he wants. This would accord nicely with the nature of post modernism as it is a thought system of uncertainty by definition.

By asking the question you are maybe betraying that you are not really a post modernist but seeking certainty rather than its opposite.

You have rejected all answers suggested as unsatisfactory. From a PM POV there has to be something wrong with the question.

However, having begun an atonement thread, why don't you revisit the Christus Victor thread in Limbo. pretty well all the bases are covered in that behemoth thread.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
JJ - He knew this: Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11—"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.". As we all do.

One has to deliberately choose to be blind to exclude punishment from this narrative.

I don't think that one has to be deliberately blind to exclude punishment from this narrative.

I think that it is just a failure of the imagination to grasp alternate readings.

Nor does it help that we are reading English translations that skew the meaning of many of the words.

The alternate reading that I believe is the correct one has nothing to do with punishment. Instead it has to do with the Messiah taking on our battle, taking on our faults and weaknesses and overcoming them. It was the will of God that He should fight this fight, and by His efforts, His struggles, and the wounds that He was willing to endure, He defeated the power of evil, He healed us, He made us righteous.

The larger paradigm is that the life of the spiritual man is possible only with the "death", as it were, of the natural man. This is about the priority of spiritual goals over worldly and physical ones. Jesus acted out this metaphor to the ultimate degree.

That is what Isaiah 53 is really about, in my view.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, having begun an atonement thread, why don't you revisit the Christus Victor thread in Limbo. pretty well all the bases are covered in that behemoth thread.

What a fabulous and brilliant discussion that was. [Biased]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe "orchestrating" is not the perfect term, but the synoptics definitely portray Him as more than just a willing participant.

Oh yes. He certainly knows what's going to happen and goes along with it but that's quite different to orchestrating it for the sake of it.
I think that you are making too much of the difference between John and the synoptics. The differences are certainly there - Jesus is much more on board and suffers less in John - but Jesus is still subject to the Father's plan:

quote:
John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”
But again, are you saying that John's view is invalid because it just barely made it into the canon?

No. John's gospel is as valid as the others. But it is different in how Jesus is presented.

I was merely responding to daronmedways post here.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was merely responding to daronmedways post here.

Thanks. Now I see.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks Jamat

The problem isn't with my postmodernism, any more than it is with my inability to see alternative meanings of Isaiah 53 - Freddy - from our end of the telescope of progressive revelation, which I don't have, it's the failure to deal with the thoughts and feelings of the people who wrote the texts and the One who lived them. That is a failure to be postmodern.

I'll plough through Limbo:

Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Rob Bell and Universalism
At-one-ment. ONLY one?
Christus Victor
Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The problem isn't with my postmodernism, any more than it is with my inability to see alternative meanings of Isaiah 53 - Freddy - from our end of the telescope of progressive revelation, which I don't have, it's the failure to deal with the thoughts and feelings of the people who wrote the texts and the One who lived them. That is a failure to be postmodern.

I don't believe that our goal is to affirm the thoughts and feelings of the ones who wrote the texts. If these texts are divine revelation then the meaning would often be beyond them.

Jesus is a different matter. It definitely matters how He understood it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

But we can't know how He understood it. We can only infer. Cum fides et ratio.

He is THE mystery and the atonement is another that overlaps Him.

When totally constrained in human form Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18). There are those here who faithfully don't believe in Satan the Devil and I have been swayed that way due to critiques of post-exilic editing of Job (and Chronicles. And Genesis. And ...) and critiques of traditional understanding of refereneces in Isaiah and Ezekiel and ... That pendulum has stopped swinging. Is locked back where it came from, not just hanging undecided.

He was real for the human Jesus in His recollection of pre-human experience and more besides. What other pre-human memories did He have?

"Before Abraham was, I am."? Did He infer that?

Did He rationalize, transcendentalize away the obvious meaning of punishment in Isaiah 53 which the Holy Spirit obviously inspired?

Who knows. He didn't say.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

But Martin, the Jews did not understand Is 53 that way, any more in the New Testament times than now. The interpretation post-dates Jesus. Maybe by a thousand years. Maybe by fifteen hundred. And it's one verse. One. Verse. In the whole of the Bible, one solitary verse that ties in the sacrificial death with punishment. If it were as significant as you imply, then it's strange that Jesus teaches nothing whatever about PSA in all the records that we have of His earthly ministry.

And surely the message of Easter is "death (and therefore, following Paul, sin) is defeated, its power broken". No-one is denying that. Just that it has diddly-squat to do with forgiveness.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's a verse with which Jesus would have been somewhat familiar.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

True, Martin, but that only emphasizes His silence with respect to it. Had the people been under a misapprehension of its meaning, he could have corrected them at any time. It's not as if He shied away from that sort of thing. That He did not may be an argument from silence, but as a concept, it's hardly off the wall. As a good Rabbi, He would certainly have weighed any individual text with the whole of the Law and Prophets, as we, also, must.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

In The Christian and the Pharisee Rabbi David Rosen explains a Jewish understanding of that passage to a fairly incredulous RT Kendall - I can recommend it for getting to grips with a very different (but reasonable) viewpoint, Martin.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yeah AND. ALL true guys. ALL part of the picture. The Musee D'orsay of pictures, the collage, mosaic of mosaics, ikon of ikons. Where does the baby end and the bathwater begin eh?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In The Christian and the Pharisee Rabbi David Rosen explains a Jewish understanding of that passage to a fairly incredulous RT Kendall - I can recommend it for getting to grips with a very different (but reasonable) viewpoint, Martin.

It looks like an interesting book, but I wasn't able to read enough of it online to see what the Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53 was.

Can you summarize it?

My understanding is that this chapter was seen as a description of how Messiah would emerge from humble beginnings and lead Israel to greatness through his willingness to endure hardship and his ability to overcome great obstacles. He would lead Israel back from the captivity brought on by its transgressions.I

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But Martin, the Jews did not understand Is 53 that way, any more in the New Testament times than now. The interpretation post-dates Jesus. Maybe by a thousand years. Maybe by fifteen hundred. And it's one verse. One. Verse. In the whole of the Bible, one solitary verse that ties in the sacrificial death with punishment. If it were as significant as you imply, then it's strange that Jesus teaches nothing whatever about PSA in all the records that we have of His earthly ministry.

I did try. For about five pages.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Can you summarize it?

Essentially, his viewpoint is that when it talks about the Messiah, it's talking about Israel itself. In the sense that Messiah means "one annointed by God for a task", it's not looking forward to the one Christ, Jesus, but talking about Israel's calling (and failure) to be a light to the world. Part of that calling then for Israel, is to suffering, in order to fulfil its mandate (and when it fails to do so). So Israel's unique calling is an honour and a burden.

There also seems to be a sense that it does refer to individual Jews who submit to that calling - specifically Hezekiah in the contemporary context, but yeah, that it's not about the one Christ, but anyone who is Messiah'd by God, and what the natural consequences of that are.

Anyway, that's how I understood it. I'm sure Rabbi Rosen would refine and correct it quite a lot - but it is a very different theological framework to the Christian one that I'm used to.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Thanks! That's very interesting that the personalization can be seen as being about Israel collectively. I agree that this often happens in the Prophets.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Evensong - you didn't. And He did.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sigh. That's all so binary isn't it? Polarized. Western. I blame Cicero.

Sod it. The Jews and their understanding now and then (of which we haven't the faintest idea and if we do - please disabuse me, it isn't relevant) have nothing to do with Jesus', God stuck - shuck of divine prerogative - in a man's experience and His narrative of it, His struggle with it.

I'm NOT arguing for PSA in the slightest. I don't want it. I don't need it. I don't accept it.

But it's THERE. It's in the culture for many of hundreds of years up to Christ and thousands beyond. It's brutal and childish and simple and primitive and most Christians regardless of how enlightened the odd Roman or Orthodox believed and believe it. As most Jews before them. I.e. the vast majority if not all. Progressive revelation is flashes in bloody darkness.

Protestants have 'evangelized' with it for half a millennium. Romans twice that. It goes all the way back and beyond.

It was in the Jewish culture of the day. Darkness not light. No liberal reformed rabbis there. John 11:49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” and that was said 'in the prophetic'.

If Jesus DIDN'T wrestle with feeling like He was PSA personified, just Zenned it, He didn't say. And He DID say the opposite. It's perfectly human, normal to say, think and feel both of course.

What's intriguing, poignant, is that He didn't say. He expressed Himself in terms of that brutal, nasty, oppressive, unenlightened, ignorant narrative and He was the most transcendent possible human. His inner dialogue, His PRAYER - for heaven's sake! - are full of doubt and horror and dread, full of HUMANITY.

Penal substitutionary atonement is a human meme. He couldn't NOT have been infected with it.

To say that everything is true, postmodernly valid except this is absurd. Unreal. Blind. Dishonest. Doesn't meet anyone where they live. Anyone. Including those who have never encountered the New Testament before. As soon as they do, they'll see it. And they won't like it, being postmodern. Rationalizing it away in the text and its world has no credibility whatsoever. It has to be embraced and THUS redeemed.

All psychosis, all aberration does.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
You didn't answer the question, EE. Martin is asking why Jesus was compelled to choose to die for sin. He uses the word twice. His concern appears to be the element of compulsion, coercion, duress. Was Jesus under duress when he chose to die for sin? Or was he expressing the eternal purpose in the perfect unity of the eternal Trinity in when he chose the cross? Martin's presupposition appears to be the presence of compulsion, duress and coercion within the Trinity and therefore an element of compulsion in Jesus' choosing to die.

I don't accept that Jesus was 'compelled' to die for sin, in the sense that He (and therefore God) was or is under some higher authority to which He is bound. This is the usual scenario from which the term 'compel' derives its meaning. But to say this, is not equivalent to presenting a God who decided to die for man's sin on a kind of whim or because He just "felt like it" one day, as it were.

We can say that "God doesn't have to save anyone", and I believe that this is a sentiment generally expressed by those of the Reformed tradition, who are (rightly) concerned to uphold God's sovereignty. I would agree with this, as long as salvation is linked to creation. I assume that God was and is under no moral obligation to create anyone. But having created people, God is morally 'obliged' to His own revealed nature to offer the possibility of salvation to all, because to create people and then, from the moment of conception, completely to abandon them to the forces of evil, is contrary to justice. Of course, 'obliged' is not really the right word, because that implies that God's will is being circumvented. God's will is perfectly allied to His nature, and therefore what His nature 'obliges' Him to do, is what He, of course, wants to do.

Therefore Jesus was only 'compelled' in this latter sense; He was driven by the immutable nature of God, which, of course, is His own nature.

By the way... when we talk about the 'sovereignty' of God, we are not talking about the sovereignty of the person who just happens to be the one with the most power. Period. We are talking about the sovereignty of a particular Person with a particular nature. Therefore that nature has sovereignty, and cannot be subverted. Given that this nature loves and upholds justice, then the sovereignty of God implies that justice cannot be undermined. So the sovereignty of God can never imply that God can just "do what he likes" in the anarchic and capricious sense. The sovereign God can never contravene His own nature of justice, mercy, holiness, righteousness and love. Therefore there is a sense in which He, being the ultimate morally responsible Being, has 'obligations'. This is also why God can never subvert His own moral law - or the implications of that law - hence the necessity of the cross.

[ 26. January 2014, 16:17: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What's 'moral law'? And justice and mercy and whatever aren't alongside love i.e. Sovereignty. They are aspects of it. Reconciled in it.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC.....
What's 'moral law'?

Law(s) concerned with morality.

quote:
And justice and mercy and whatever aren't alongside love i.e. Sovereignty. They are aspects of it. Reconciled in it.

Verily I do discern, that thou art nitpicking. [Big Grin]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What are laws concerning morality that Love is bound by?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evensong - you didn't. And He did.

I don't think he did either.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

So Evensong, you don't think, feel, have the disposition that He was driven, compelled, submitted to have to die, to comply with His Father's will. That He die.

For the forgiveness of all sin.

Or do you feel similarly about that proposition? That the Father DIDN'T will for Him to sacrifice Himself?

And that His blood does not atone for all sin. Was not necessary in any sense.

That Paul and Peter and Junia got it wrong?

That any plain, obvious reading of Matthew or Mark Or Luke or John is invalid?

That in no sense was Jesus' death necessary?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0